tv Public Affairs CSPAN February 4, 2013 12:00pm-5:00pm EST
out. there is never any restitution for nobody. host: is there a message to washington with the current state you're in? caller: i have no idea. i just live my life, day-to- day, doing what i have to do. sometimes i have to sacrifice medication, or food, sometimes it is a constant fight. if i had had my job i would have had the insurance to take care >> washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. we are going live to capitol hill with a news conference with lisa murkowski. she is discussing energy policy. >> i have the book. you have all been waiting for it and take you for giving me
the opportunity to talk a little bit about what we have been doing on the energy committee for the past year in an effort to really focus on where we have been with energy policy and really helping to move forward in a way that is not the same old same old, but really real imagining and refocusing where we should be has been an important opportunity for us to really put some considered thought into the proposal. what you have in front of you is better than airplane reading. there are some suggestions in this energy 2020 document that people will look at and they will argue and they will say -- that is one person's view. that is true, that is true. but while we are trying to do is
not give you a legislative package starting with initiatives that we are going to kind of clicked off as we move forward. this is really designed to be a discussion blueprint. we want to try to change the conversation. one of the reasons we have to think about changing the conversation is because the energy paradigm has really shifted. think about where we were one decade ago. it was all about scarcity, shortages, and how much dependent we were on foreign sources for our oil. fast forward to where we are today. those once thought of import terminals are looking to the export terminals. we have made considerable gains in terms of our own energy
independence, to the point where it is no longer just a slogan that we are talking about. think about what it means to go from an energy discussion that is focused on scarcity to one that is focused on relative abundance and what that means for us as a nation. i started off my comments this morning and gave an address in which i said it pretty simply, starting off with the proposition that energy is good. energy is good. any of you that watched the super bowl last night know that it is not only good, but necessary. whether it is keeping the lights on so that we can enjoy the game or keeping the lights on so that we can work, this is -- this is essential to we are as a prosperous nation. when you look at these covers, there is a reason for the cover here.
when you look at where the lights are around the world, these are prosperous nations where the lights are on. where the lights are off, mongolia, parts of china, and unfortunately my state of alaska, this is not such a prosperous area. how we utilize this basic premise of energy being good and move from there, that is a part of how we want to launch this discussion. contained within this, again, are five fairly simple propositions. we need to move to an energy policy that is abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. when you look at energy in that context, it really does help to
give you some parameters and guidelines on moving forward. so, as you go through this proposal, think about it in the context in which i am offering it. not legislation. i know the first question is going to be -- when will we see the first bill here? you will see legislation moving forward based on the debates and the dialogue on some pretty meaty issues. whether it is how we vance revenue sharing to the state, whether it is how we put in place and export policy that is not only good for jobs but helps consumers keep prices low, at the same time working on our own balance of trade that is so incredibly important. what we are trying to establish is a new direction.
as we talk about new directions, i am going to anticipate one of your questions, which is -- how does climate change fit into your discussion of energy in 2020? it has to be part and parcel of what we are talking about. as we see a change in our energy dynamic, there is also a very keen awareness about energy production and consumption that demands attention to the environmental aspect as well. so, we do not shy away from it, but you will not see a cap and trade proposal in here, or a suggestion that we need to impose a carbon tax, because that is designed to increase the costs. in my state of alaska, in a
community like [indiscernible] a you come community on the river, they pay $6.90 for their diesel. that is how they heat their homes. when you suggest to them that the best thing to do is increase the price to decrease consumption, i do not know what the temperature is there this morning, but last week in the interior temperatures range between 45 degrees below zero and 50 degrees below zero. i cannot go back to alaska and tell people that the way that we tackle this is to increase your prices, demanding you to use less and limit your choices. that is not what a strong nation
does. what a strong nation does is figure out how we advanced to the next stage, how we build out these clean technologies and diverse technologies that will allow us to do your choices. more and do it in a clean and environmentally responsible way. raising our energy costs, imposing the mandates, other heavy handed ideas but are out there for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they will not pass. we have tried it once. so, what we need to be doing as we move forward, rulemaking efforts, as we know, which will try to take things in a direction that i would disagree with. we need to find ways to develop those technologies that allow us to have that greater environmental responsibility. so, we need to develop the resources that we have today. we do it domestically, cut our dependence, taking a portion of
that revenue and specifically dedicating it in it to the energy solutions of tomorrow. we talk about our energy funds and how they would build out and truly help us advance. that is kind of the framework. it is good reading. it is thoughtful reading and it is designed to advance the discussion on critically important topics. i think that last night, as i was kind of watching the game and at the same time doing my homework and focusing on how we would do this roll out today, i really did not have any idea when the game first started how 34 minutes was going to help me tell the energy story and why we focused on energy as a
prosperous nation. i know it kind of delayed the game a little bit, but it was sure helpful from the perspective of letting americans know how important energy is in the day the world. -- daily world. any questions you have about what is contained in it, what is not, happy to take them. >> your definition of clean energy, are you looking to replace the definition? putting in a national clean energy standard? >> we are not looking to replace the definition. i think that has been part of the problem, we have not really defined clean. it is subject to your own interpretation. we talked a lot about clean coal and i happen to believe that our
technology can deliver clean coal, but some who are definitely opposed say that there is no such thing. it is how we define it and give some definition. this to be aow definition, more along a spectrum. is this technology, is this energy going to have less environmental impact than the next energy source, the most likely energy source next to it? how we allow for a definition that we can somehow agreed to is important. it has not really been in place. the clean energy standards that you refer to, it was not an
attempt to define clean, necessarily. more these generic descriptors that we're looking for in energy policy and abundant, clean, diverse and secure. >> the climate change fund [inaudible] how do you envision that meshing with what the administration [inaudible] >> i think that there are some things -- i was a supporter of increasing cafe standards. we have seen the benefits of that. it is important to recognize that we have some initiatives in place that we can either build on, enhance, make better -- a
perfect example is the guarantee for loans. i think there is a will for loan guarantee programs, but i think it must be address. i think we need to look very critically at the subsidies and the chief risk officers. we need to consider how we can have some kind of early warning system inc. and how we might allow for eligibility for more viable projects. these things need to be incorporated, in my view, in the reshape loan guarantee program. there are other areas where we can step forward and provide some financing opportunities. the public-private partnerships, i have been working with senator [indiscernible] on the opportunities for
renewable energy opportunities that at this time had been limited to oil and gas. why can we not expand them? why can they not be expanded to applicability? one of the problems that we face when we try to develop these clean energy technologies, the cost. so, if we can find those areas where there is a federal role, not just massive subsidies, not necessarily mandates coming down, but ways that we can help to facilitate the financing and this makes sense to me -- this is an area we should be going. the other area i mentioned earlier, i believe that what we need is a renewable energy deployment fund.
something through which the revenue that we gain increases domestic production and we sent off a portion of that to go into specifically energy technology funds. let's set up something so that we can move to it, instead of saying -- where are we going to find the money? it is tough times out there. we do have some opportunity. not only with what is currently in place, but let's adjust it, enhance it, and look to other considerations, perhaps. >> one of the gas subsidies was used to fund clean energy programs [inaudible] >> one of the things the administration proposed has been
the admit -- elimination of any of the oil and gas tax credit subsidies that are out there. they have done it in a very direct way where it is tax reform for the gas industry, but no one else. i do not think that that is right or that most would suggest that the only car out here, if you will, with tax reform, is on the backs of the oil and gas industry. i do not think that makes sense and i will not support it. but as we consider tax reform, which i believe we must do as a congress, i think that the tax credits that are out there, the subsidies available for the oil and gas industry should be on the table along with everything else out there. it is important to recognize that they are in the mix when that discussion is going on, but
i do not think it is a very targeted approach to one industry to say that this is where we will find our source of revenue this week. >> [inaudible] >> well, what i have proposed in our 2020 report is that there be a considered review and in the letter that i sent out last week, i encourage a review of the export policy in place right now. as you pointed out, if you are not an fda country, before the
license can be approved, there has to be a best interest finding. i think it is fair to do a full on review of what we have established. having said that, i think it is in the nation's best interest to encourage exports. we are looking to keep prices down, one of my key components being affordability. you want to make sure that as we move toward greater exports that you are not impacting the affordability peace. i think that it is fair that there be a considered review of this. and i would expect nothing short of a considered review. i will suggest to this much,
that as we are looking to those friends and allies who do not count free trade agreements with us, specifically japan, they have experienced really a national energy crisis following the tsunami an earthquake of 2011, we should look critically to how we can help our friends through export licenses. >> i was wondering, is there room for compromise in what you have laid out? [inaudible] would you be willing to support taking some revenue from the areas that we have now? >> is there room for compromise?
yes, absolutely. what i want to leave folks with is the real, honest approach of this. i am putting a lot of ideas the table. some of them a takeoff like rockets, others might be total duds. but that is not my criteria here. my criteria, what i am trying to do, is figure out how to get moving on energy policy for this country. if i can have a conversation with lawmakers about how we might advance our offshore opportunities, let's get into a conversation about revenue
sharing. look at the direction that senator white mother and i are already taken -- taking the revenue-sharing. when i started this discussion it was about revenue sharing for coastal states that those oil and gas. we have gone beyond that, drafting a bill that would not only include offshore oil and gas, but any other energy resources that might come from offshore, whether it is wind, ocean energy, let's share that as well with these host states. now we are talking about maybe even more that we can do with the revenue sharing on federal lands that has not been considered before. we have opened the conversation very wide. i think that that is important for us to acknowledge, that we are not walking into one position, that we are not going
to draw a line in the sand and say that unless you take my first 10 ideas, i do not want to even talk to you about energy. that is not where i am coming from. how we start the conversation, build compromise and consensus for an energy policy that works for republicans and democrats, rural and urban areas -- how it works for us all. >> what kinds of conversations have you had with [inaudible] republicans in committee? >> i have kind of cute senator widen -- cued senator widen in and he was excited to know that we were putting this love love staff time and personal time into a real study of what is
going up and where we can go. so, he has made give it a little bit of the meat of it. he was given his copy. he is going through as well. my staff is sitting down with his staff to give him the background in terms of where we have been. i have met with each of the republicans on the energy committee and told them where we are within. i also wanted to know -- we have published this report before i went to them, seeking their input. i wanted to make sure that i was not completely missing the boat on an issue, something that was important to someone and we have overlooked it. i will be honest with you, we did pick up something from
senator ross, he is very interested in helium, which is not contained in here. just about literally everything else that we did has been incorporated in one way, shape, or form. there was an effort to reach out. i made certain that every member of the energy committee had a copy of it this morning. this is not something i only want republicans to read. i want my friends on the other side of the aisle to study it as well, engage with me. let's talk about what we have in front of us and talk about some of the areas where -- the areas where we can focus and put our shoulders behind it. >> has anyone determine whether you will support senator hegel? >> let's to energy here. i have four more behind you. sorry about that.
>> there are about 200 recommendations in this. are there any that you can point to specifically as things that you were talking about before? >> i do not think that i have called for the full elimination of the advanced technology vehicles manufacturing programs. in the document we say -- look, this is a program that has only seen the issuance of five loans throughout the time of the program. it is just not working and it needs to be technology neutral, let's get rid of it. trying to think if there are others that would be kind of, i guess, brand spanking new so
much of what is contained within this are things i have said in my four years as ranking member of the energy committee. some of it, i guess, is just plain old common sense. it is good to put it down as it reflects my position. >> can you elaborate more on why you have concerns [inaudible] philosophically wrong with that? [inaudible] >> in terms of the program itself, i think it was pretty clear when it was established that it was not intended to be something that was in place forever.
so, if something has demonstrated limited use and if it is really not an initiative that is technology neutral when, why not shelved it? it is not that i have any kind of philosophical objection to new technologies for vehicles, i am all over them. but should we decide that well, it is going to be electric vehicles that are really going to be the chosen vehicle by the congress here, why not allow it to be more of a jump ball in terms of what should move forward? electric? natural gas? when we make that directive, by definition it puts other
technologies, if not on the outs, perhaps not as on a competitive edge. in terms of whether or not i have had conversations with the committee about the specifics within the proposal, i have not as of yet. >> u.s. your republican colleagues on the committee to join you, buy or -- you have asked your republican colleagues on the committee to join you -- why or why not? [inaudible] >> first of all, i did not ask members to join me because i am not advancing legislation here. it is not like i will call them up to be a co-sponsor, there is nothing here to co-sponsor. in fact i made very clear as we
were drafting its that i did not want to have the specific legislation in here. when we first started off my critical minerals bill was in here, which i usually supported, but this is -- if this is really a conversation starter, let's allow it to be just that. there is nothing predetermine, preordained, nothing determined in there. what i wanted to do was developing these discrete pieces of legislation where i go to my colleagues and ask for their specific support and i hope that they will take a look at it and there will be initiatives that will look at and say -- hey, coming from this perspective, i have this idea and maybe we can build a bill together.
how can we make things happen? that is the big question. there is a lot goes on around here that never sees the light of day on the floor. i would like to think that we are beyond that time and comes to energy legislation. there is a pent-up demand out there. part of it is that we did not move a lot of good things through the energy committee in the past congress. it did not move to the floor. how will we make that happen? >> a couple of different ways. senator widen and i have started off looking at these issues holistic play. we agree that there are some things that he will never come to my saigon and things that i will never come to his side on, but we are about 80% in the middle and we can come
together, with our committee, having some good, old-fashioned debates and amendments that may survive or fail. build a bipartisan bill out of committee. get the momentum going. know what we are doing. we have already begun to reach out and we will continue that. we have got to work with the majority leader to press the case for the need. i do not believe that you will see a comprehensive energy bill like you saw in 2005. i do believe the you will see smaller initiatives that with the vance cumulatively and make a difference, not only for energy policy, but for the
economic security, for environmental responsibility. i think you will see some positive, positive changes, takes some muscle, honestly, with the chairman and myself as the ranking member to make sure that these issues stay in the forefront. i do not want this report to be one where we have members getting it, looking at the cover, flipping to the table of contents and going to the one section that interests them, passing it off to a junior staffer and saying -- what do you think about this? in order for us to do something, we have got to stick with it.
x [inaudible] -- >> [inaudible] >> it is a big one, clearly. but i also recognize that we do not have a lot of choices right now. if this is a conversation about energy here, we have some deadlines in front of us, from a fiscal perspective, that if we do not get on top of quickly, we are going to see an impact to the economy that we are not going to like. the headline from last week about the slowing of our gdp, it is going to be a situation where it is no longer acceptable to kick the can.
so, when we talk about the need for tax reforms, i am one who says that we have got to put it all on the table. we have got to be willing to make some very difficult choices. the options if we fail to act are not something that most in this country will be satisfied with. >> i know that says you want to take a look at some of the energy initiatives here. in the house they talked about doing energy efficiency legislation puc that moving? still questionable? >> let me just start by saying that i am a firm believer in
doing more in this country when it comes to efficiency. it is one of the legs of the energy tool that is absolutely critical to us. i think it is often overlooked. people look -- people look to the old technologies and there are things making news. someone joked to me once that if we could just figure out how to have a groundbreaking or ribbon cutting that involved some kind of energy efficiency, you would get lawmakers much more interested in moving forward with that as an initiative. also big -- she came and went last year, but did not get the full bill pass.
just a portion. they indicated to me that they would pursue that again and i have encouraged them, i want to " work with them and colleagues on the house side as well. this should not -- energy efficiency should not be something that you just kind of say -- well, we will see that one. -- seed -- cede that one. what more important call is there than efficiency? how we do it will be the case. we have a lot more they can go in there. >> can you say more broadly
whether your plan envisions a lower economy going forward? or will that just be enough? >> i do believe that it would be an outgrowth of>> what is the we are proposing. i do not think that it is by accident or happenstance. i think that what you see as you utilize technologies that allow you to move to cleaner energy, as you use technologies to allow for diversification that when viewed through these breakthroughs in how we produced or consume our energy, you do get to a lower carbon environment. i think that that is a good thing. we should be moving that way and are moving that way. some of it has been command and control. cafe clearly was. but think about what else has happened. you have seen a shift to more
renewables. you have seen a shift towards natural gas. in my state you have seen a shift in the technology that allows us to go after our fossil fuels in a manner that again is in less intensity than the other most likely alternative. so, we are reducing our emissions and that is the way that we should be going. but, again, to take an approach that has been tried and failed, cap and trade, or a carbon tax that is designed by its nature to increase prices at a time when our economy does not need to see increased energy prices,
that will not get us to a lower carbon economy. i think my vision takes us there and it is not by accident. i think it is because our desire to be in a world that has more affordable abundant clean bill of verse and secure energy has taken that step -- clean, diverse, and secure energy has taken that step. >> [inaudible] >> i think we need to be vigilant, if you will, about how the administration moves forward on rulemaking that would lead -- to a policy by
default when it comes to reducing emissions through the rulemaking and regulatory process. we will keep an eye on that. we recognize that the tools in the tool box are relatively limited. there have been a couple of different efforts since that, several years ago. my sense is that the administration is going to look at the lay of the land and an economy that is recovering, realized that the attempts at command and control has failed in the past and i think they will attempt a more back door approach to get their desired
results. so, we are going to have to be on the alert. >> [inaudible] renewables standard [inaudible] >> no, i do not use the word eliminate, but i do think that it is something that we need to look at critically. some of the consequences we are seeing, we are up against this land wall right now. we have a requirement and an inability to meet their requirements.
you do not have -- not necessarily the nexus, but the alignment between policy and ability to perform. i do not need to tell any of you about the stress and anxiety that we have over fuel and the fact that when we are talking about corn based ethanol being used for fuel, that puts pressure on the prices of corn and what that really means. so, how we put in place policies that might look good and sound good, we need to make sure we are not going down a road of unintended consequences. and if we are, have the ability to pull back and say that maybe this one did not work the way it had hoped to.
instead everyone gets so invested in it. i need to have this, even though it is not necessarily wise policy? let's not be afraid to admit that we might need to revamp it, reform it, making it more technology neutral. that is not saying that we have failed, but it might be acknowledging that we did not appreciate all the consequences that might be attached to it. so, i am one who says -- let's look at this critically. i think that am in good company asking for that critical review. ok, thanks. >> [inaudible] >> i am not certain. how is that? yes. >> [inaudible]
>> i am doing energy right now. my book is solely on energy. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> you can see this conference again at any time, look in the c-span video library on c- span.org. she will be joining her colleagues today in the senate as the gavel in. the house gavels in at 2:00 p.m. eastern, giving speeches and then going into recess until 5:00. this week members will debate and vote on a measure that allows the president to submit a balanced budget to congress. the senate has also said that they would gavel in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. we authorizing the violence against when act, a domestic
law. the final vote could happen later this week. democrats are gathering in annapolis, maryland. live coverage at the house. president obama is in minneapolis today, holding conversations with local law enforcement officials on gun control. we will have his remarks, right here on c-span. >> if you have some hot shot that just got his ph.d. in computer science, he is getting offers from all over the world. they will even stay in limbo for six years or so, staying competitive. >> congress could do a lot and you would not have to be proficient on your iphone or blackberry to understand the applications of what makes it work and what does not.
>> it does make it difficult to get investment decisions and expect a return on the investment with no way to predict if the future. >> the role of government in technology and policy from the international consumer electronics show, tonight on "the communicators," on c-span to. >> earlier today, the special note inspector general for afghanistan. on seven key over kyte fills -- goals, the future of -- future of that. >> welcome, it is my pleasure today to be hosting john, the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction.
ofhe has been a state and fedel prosecutor and congressional counsel and senior head of government adviser. he has been the chief counsel for oversight and investigation of the committee for energy and commerce, as well as being on the council for homeland security. and he was on the senate subcommittee for investigation of staff at the justice department at the state and federal level. today he is the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. we are now entering our 12th year in that conflict. i wish that i could report that the reconstruction is complete.
unfortunately, what we know is that compared to 10 years ago there has not been a great deal of progress in afghanistan's society and quality of government. but, as we are very well aware, the reconstruction program has not always gone as desired or expected. we have military units continuing to rotate into afghanistan today. we still have many tens of dozens -- tens of thousands, with a rap -- rapid troop drawdown over the next two years. it was what we construction officials had hoped for and expected. having recently returned from a trip to afghanistan cow -- ,, here is we heard to what he had
chairman of the board of trustees, as well as with john, for quite a few years. he has been a tireless leader of csis and it is a bit of a homecoming. in many ways this 15 years helped to prepare me for my current job. there i saw firsthand what congressional oversight, fair and open oversight can do to improve programs and policies for the united states government. this was later reinforced when i had the opportunity to work with whom many people have viewed as probably the father of modern congressional oversight, channel -- chairman john dingell. offering both of them -- from both of them i've learned the role of them -- of an important
and independent inspector general. the statute in 1978 was to have an inspector general the cold truth to power. both of those men fully understood the role of the importance of inspector general and improving the operations of the united states government. in many ways, those men have brought me to where i am today. it has only been seven months since i was appointed as the special inspector general for afghan reconstruction by president obama. as well as many of the nation's top policymakers and prestigious think tank experts, including many right here and in the audience. i have learned a lot about our governments efforts there, we
have accomplished and what we have not, as well as the region as well as the many challenges facing us in that country. i have spent a lot of time thinking about my role and the role of our agency is in the country. let me tell you about us. we are not a well known organization. it is not something smoky. it is the special afghan reconstruction. their mission is reconstruction in afghanistan, nothing else. we have the authority to examine any project from any government agency operating in afghanistan under reconstruction. the department of defense, aig, the part of justice, it is unique. we have the largest oversight presence on the ground.
we have the most progressive suspension and debarment program. and we have the most successful records rather than prosecuting them in afghan courts. we are a temporary agency. we go out of existence. we sunsets. so, we have a way to go. we are in the building right now. accordingly we had some very unique hiring and firing authorities that allowed us to get the best people as quickly as we could for what i think is the most dangerous oversight job in the government. when created in 2008, we were given the policies including the
afghan reconstruction effort. offering direction as necessary >> i try to visit afghanistan a day -- every quarter. i can tell you, they are intent philip by the end of 2014. -- i can tell you, equally interested in the concern in their ability to manage continued reconstruction through and beyond. it is fair to say that the success or pharaoh year of the entire investment in afghanistan
is teetering on whether these interrelated and ambitious goals can be met. i have little doubt, especially from speaking to all of the major leaders in my latest trip that the men and women responsible for taking on this challenge are aware of the situation. likewise, the newly installed congress has the responsibility to make sure that the next stage of our nearly $100 billion decades-long reconstruction effort is properly directed to the activities and projects that will have the greatest opportunity for long-term success. in light of my role and our unique mission and a mandate, i want to propose today to you a set of seven fundamental questions that need to be asked of every ongoing and plan the
reconstruction project by both congress and the executive branch in order to ensure their success and the ultimate success of our mission in afghanistan. the first question is, does that project or program make a clear and identifiable contribution to our national interests and strategic objectives? do the afghans want those programs or projects? do they need those programs afg. or projects? the third question is -- have those programs or projects been coordinated? with our own government? internally? with the afghans? the fourth question -- to the security conditions permit effective implementation and oversight of those projects and programs? the fifth question is -- to those programs and projects have
adequate safeguards to protect, the terror, and mitigate corruption, endemic in afghanistan? the sixth question that we need to ask is -- to the afghans have the financial resources, technical capability, and political will to take those programs and sustain them in the next decade? lastly, i have the implementing agencies establishing meaningful, measurable metrics for determining success. are they applied to their own programs? to many of you in the audience, these questions seem simple. in fact, they are. but unfortunately, we have found in our work and what the others have found in their work is that
they are often ignored by those designing and implementing those programs. i would like to take the time in the rest of the speech to explain why these are important, our work and what they're doing about it, and explain it for the years to come as we look at reconstruction in afghanistan. do the projects and programs make a clear and identifiable contribution to our national interest and strategic objectives? as you are aware, the primary goal of the united states in afghanistan is to prevent afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for terrorist groups to launch attacks against the united states and its allies. the central tenet has been to counter insurgency with clear,
cold, and build. reconstruction programs have failed to achieve this intended benefits, in some cases having resulted in an adverse affects. in april of last year, for example, we have local governments and community development programs, which the u.s. agency for international development touted as the flagship program. the primary goal of that program was to create in partnership with the afghan government a stable environment for long-term economic and social development. as we reported, the program had not met its primary goal of extending the legitimacy of the government, nor had it brought the government closer to the people or fostered stability. in fact, my auditors found that
each of the eight provinces experienced dramatic increases in the level of violence between 2006 and 2010. although although the effects of the lgcd program on security levels could not be isolated, it did not achieve its intended goals. likewise, in july of last year, we issued a report on the affluent -- on the afghan and restructure aip, which congress created. we found that five of the seven fiscal year 2011 projects were behind schedule and some of them may not achieve in the positive
point affects for several years, if at all. we also are identified some instances were the projects resulted in the adverse affects, because they either created an expectation gap or lacked citizen support. we intend to conduct more assessments to support the coin strategy in the coming years, including an audit their we will initiate on the stabilization and key areas program, which is a $177 million community promised -- $177 million committee -- community projects. the questions that should be asked our -- under the afghans want it? and do they need it? you'll be surprised how often we find the answer to this question is no. let me give you an example. a few days ago, as many of you
probably saw on the press, we released an inspection report on the $7.3 million border police facility. when our inspectors went to visit the site, they found it and used. although the facility was built for 175 troopers, there were only 12 afghan personnel on site, and no one was sure among them whether the site was going to be used. moreover, our inspectors could not even access most of the buildings, because they were locked and the border police personnel present did not have keys. now there is a bit of good news. the commander general boulder, which is responsible for these projects, agreed with our recommendations to reassess the plans and determine whether construction contracts can be downsized, facilities
eliminated, were redesigned. this is a great example of power our work can lead to tangible improvements. i am especially pleased with the continued cooperation of general bolger and his team attempting to improve efforts on reconstruction. let me turn to another problem, which is that in our third question. that is, as the program or project been coordinated with other implemented u.s. agencies with the afghan government and other international donors? the border police example is an example of poor coordination with the afghan orman. -- afghan government. let me give you an example of poor coordination with the u.s. government. in 2011, there were efforts to strengthen the financial sector in afghanistan and to safeguard the u.s. funds that flow into the afghan economy. we found that even though the department of defense and
department of homeland security were working with the same afghan banks, need your agency was aware of the other's efforts. -- neither agency was aware of the other's efforts. we need to coordinate efforts over visibility of cash flows. as reported, ltd. interagency coordination with u.s. agencies at risk of working a cross purposes and definitely not benefiting and leveraging existing relationships. the next question i posed is particularly important for cigar, because it impacts almost as much as the agency's implementing reconstruction. and that is, whether security conditions permit and effective implementation and oversight. although the u.s. combat role is scheduled to end by december, 2014, the withdrawal of u.s. troops is well under way.
u.s. and coalition forces have already pulled out of a number of locations in afghanistan, leading some of those places too dangerous for us or the implementing agencies to visit. some of you may have heard of a term called the golden hour. this refers to the policy unique to only u.s. forces and only in afghanistan, which in essence the says that the military will only provide security in areas within an hour of a facility appear -- of a facility that can provide emergency care. the safe and bubble around of those medical facilities extend as far as a 20-minute helicopter ride. as the troops continued to withdraw, the amount of territory inside afghanistan that falls outside these bubbles
will increase. accordingly, the number of u.s.- funded projects and programs that can be monitored and overseen by u.s. personnel will decrease. and if we cannot get our to review a project or inspected facility and, it is highly unlikely that the agency's finding them can do either, whether an agency of the department of state, department of defense, department of justice, department of agriculture, any other of the myriad of agencies operating in afghanistan. this means that more reconstruction projects exist with no direct u.s. oversight. we have already seen the limitations on the reconstruction effort, as well as on our own operation and that of our colleagues and others in the law-enforcement community. in 2011, reported that the world
bank had not conducted site visits outside of kabul to monitor the activities funded by the multibillion-dollar afghanistan reconstruction trust fund because of security concerns. security restrictions are not limited to just the world bank. just recently, one of my inspection teams was told that a location in northern afghanistan was beyond the golden hour, beyond the security bubble, and therefore deemed too unsafe to enter. as a result, we are unable right now to inspect 38 facilities, or approximately 72 -- worth approximately $72 million. i want to take this opportunity to personally thank the operations under the command of colonel j. r. bass and the for the alabama national guard, who were cast -- who have done wonderful work in supporting us not only in afghanistan in the north, but
elsewhere in the country. but even they were limited by the security bubble. even in kabul, we find we cannot always get the protection we need to conduct our work. although kabul is clearly within the bubble, the regional security officer has informed us that because of limited resources, it is becoming increasingly difficult to support all the requests for movement by u.s. personnel in the kabul area. despite these restrictions, cigar is -- sigar is committed to moving ahead, even under the most of the cold the circumstances pretty recently, i learned that two of my agents went into the field to inspect a potentially dangerous stretch of road as part of a criminal investigation into a contractor's failure to build systems designed to prevent insurgents from placing explosives in culverts along the road. my agents were surrounded by
heavily-armed u.s. military units, who protected them as the agents literally ran down the road from culvert to kohlberg inspecting and autographing to see if there was a coal verge protection device there and whether it was adequate. i am happy to announce steps -- to announce that while i was in afghanistan, those agents were able to arrest with afghan participation, and the afghan government is charging the contractor involved in this with crimes related to the fraud committed upon the government and negligent homicide of two u.s. personnel. we are developing alternative ways to conduct oversight in afghanistan, involving the security environment. for example, we of local nationals on our staff and not subject to the same security restrictions that american employees are. in some cases, we may have to rely on them. we're also exploring the abuse of g.rawl imaging.
-- g.imaging. . geo-spac imaging. these efforts are helpful, but not preferred. the gold and standard on u.s. oversight is an employee trained to do u.s. oversight going out there inspected the site, inspect and the records, kicking the tires. unfortunately, we may not be able to do that for very much longer in afghanistan. i am particularly grateful to ambassador cunningham and general allen for their continued expressions of support for our work. both promise to me during my latest visit that they would ensure that our people would be able to access the same locations that their people can access. but ultimately, you can see that the question is, how far will
their people be able to access? what will they be able to see? how far will they be able to go outside the kabul bubble? many of our programs will be exposed to increased risk, and misused, especially as we continue to use direct or on- budget assistance to the afghan red, and especially if we do so without opposing preconditions on the afghan government for effective personnel. the next question i posed deals with an equally significant problem, namely, corruption. are the reconstruction projects developed and planned to include adequate safeguards to detect, deter, and mitigates corruption? afghanistan's reputation for corruption is deep-rooted and widespread. i do not have to devote too much
time to that. a recent survey found that 60% of the afghans believe that corruption is a major problem, and even more believe that it is a major problem on the national level. an example of some of the work we had dealing with corruption was one that our office of special projects recently reported on dealing with currency counters in the kabul international airport to count and track both cash flows are about get a stand. estimates of cash taken out of afghanistan in heaven given year are as high as $4.5 billion. -- in any given year are as high as $4.5 billion. however, those purchased and installed in 2011, we found that the afghan government has refused to use them. even worse, those identified by the afghan jimenez voip's, or in allowed to the vip's
travel freely through the airport, raising the risk of money laundering and other corruption. afghanistan has made commitments to curb corruption. the july, 2012 donor's conference in tokyo led to a set of mutually agreed to principles that included incentives for the afghan government to combat corruption. unfortunately, we are concerned and not enough is being done quickly enough on these principles, particularly developing specific benchmarks. it has been almost eight months since this landmark agreement, and we still have not seen any concrete benchmarks. if not now, when will we see them. i can tell you that as a result of my latest trip to afghanistan, i will shortly be putting the agencies on notice
as both congress and the american taxpayer need to see concrete steps in place. to ensure adequate progress to combat corruption and improve governments. if this is not done immediately, i fear we risk the loss of u.s. and international donor support for on going we construction. corruption can also undermine the sustainability of reconstruction programs. a key concern for the u.s. and other international donors. this leads me to another in a series of questions. do the afghans and their financial resources and -- to the afghans have financial resources, a technical capacity and the political will to sustain the programs we are turning over to them? we have identified numerous examples of which the u.s. created a program or build the facility without consideration as to whether the afghan government could sustain it.
in october, 2012, for example, we reported that the afghan government will unlikely be able to sustain the afghan security facilities after the transition in 2014. we found that the afghan national security forces lack personnel with technical skills required to operate and maintain critical facilities and the afghan government have phil less than 40% of authorized operation and maintenance positions. likewise in 2010, we audited reconstruction efforts in man -- in afghanistan and we found that the afghan government was severely limited in its ability to operate the u.s. completed development projects in the province. as a result, many projects have become dilapidated or were in disrepair, including a number of projects completed under the commanders emergency response program, or cerp.
in regard to the program, we were particularly troubled by some statements that senior officials had told us, that they did little more than check a box in the cerp project files to indicate that the afghan government agreed to fund and sustain those programs. the result is a waste of u.s. taxpayer money. by building infrastructure or developing programs that the afghans will never effectively used. my seventh and last question is this -- have the implementing agencies established real metrics for measuring success? and are they using them? too often, we find that agencies are focused on output, not outcomes. for example, they are interested in how many teachers day of trade, how many schools built, how many kilometers of road they
have built, how many culverts they have built, but not on what the result is. is there any result from doing that? these metra give us a part of the picture, but they do not truly give us meaningful assessment of whether programs have a chilling -- have achieved their roles. for example, in 2011, we assessed efforts to rebuild the capacity of the afghan ministry of agriculture to better serve farmers and promote private sector development. the u.s. embassy could not determine how much progress had been made from the project because all they had done was measure the products of capacity building efforts, such as the number of research stations it had built. a number of stations that have been rebuilt. the number of labs that had been built or rebuilt. rather than the results that have been achieved by the construction. as we proceed with our auditing
work, we will be increasingly looking for ways to assess the impact. what did a project or program actually achieved? if we cannot answer the question now 11 years into the conflict, then why did we spend the money? at the end of the day, the american taxpayer needs to know what the u.s. reconstruction effort has accomplished. not as output. what is the outcome of all that money spent in afghanistan? in sum, those are the seven simple, but we think critical, questions. to the extent that agencies can answer in the affirmative to them, we believe that a project or program has a better chance of achieving real success.
but if in the case -- as in the case of the afghan and infrastructure program, or the border police in kunduz, or the currency counters in the kabul international airport, the agency's spending reconstruction dollars fine said the answer to these very basic questions is in the negative. it is time for them to reevaluate continuing or starting the project or program. i particularly pose these questions in the quarterly report we issued last week. we are troubled now. we have been told that some of the agency's operating in afghanistan may be poised to obligate as much money as they can as soon as they can before the troops drawdown takes place. if this happens with our first assuring every answer those
questions in the affirmative, we are likely to waste billions of taxpayer dollars. likewise, it is incumbent upon the congress to also keep these questions in mind as they review new authorization and appropriations. and as i mentioned, congress needs to assure itself that the almost $19 billion already appropriated, but not yet obligated, not yet spent, will only be spent if they have evidence that the projects meet these seven requirements. i mentioned, congress obviously, we recognize that there may be projects that do not meet any or all of these seven questions. they still need to be funded. because the potential benefit clearly outweighs the inherent risk of failure.
but if that is the case, the implementing agencies need to clearly articulate the reasons for doing so. and congress needs to will those agencies accountable to that explanation for why they took the risk. in conclusion, we are about to embark on a dramatic drop down our troop level. at the same time, we are poised to turn over to the afghan government an unprecedented amount of buildings, projects, and funds. with the hope that they can manage them effectively. this is it risky endeavor. i believe the -- that strong and independent oversight needs to be an essential component of such a withdrawal plans. we construction activities are
to succeed. at no other time in our decade- long struggle in afghanistan has reconstruction really been so critical to our ultimate success. actually, as our own military role recede, the next two years and beyond, what some call the decade of transformation, will really be the decade of reconstruction. therefore, congress and the executive branch need to conduct a tour re-examination of reconstruction issues, programs and projects. -- conduct a thorough re- examination of a construction issues, programs, and projects. we are committed to the success of the military drawdown and closely working with the implementing agencies to ensure that we embark upon this next critical stage in the afghan reconstruction and the ultimate success.
thank you very much. i am open to question. [applause] >> thank you very much. i am sure there are many questions in the audience. i ask that if any of you have a question, raise your hand and wait for the microphone. the we are live streaming and your question will not be heard if you are not at a microphone. please, identify yourself and make sure you pose a brief question rather than give a speech. we have a lot of questions and a lot of interest and we would like to leave enough like -- enough time for mr. sopko to answer them. i have two questions here. i will take two questions at a time. >> thanks for the top. of those seven questions the u.s., and it would be difficult to get an affirmative response
on all of those seven for any of the projects that we do. however, many would say there are intangible benefits that do not demonstrate a clear metrics on the back and they allow for building and for access for u.s. forces. are there intangible benefits that you can track and not have to tie into quantitative benefits on the back end? even if they aren't results based. -- our results based. and the second part is that we have already switched over to counterinsurgency effort. how does that affect your inspection efforts? in your first question and all of your talk, you refer to programs, but never to plans. one of the issues is how you make trade-offs. do you have a coherent way to move forward? i wonder why the focus on programs, without looking at
plans, when for example the afghan government estimates its aid flow will be cut from $4.6 billion in 2012 to under $800 million in 2014, even if you get the programs right. if you do not have a plan -- and similarly, when you looked at your transition plan in your own report, there is no plan. there is simply transition. it is not tracked to the nsf. that is question one. the other is measures of effectiveness. you refer to the lack of measures of effectiveness being issued. the fact is, a lot of the measures we are using do not really make any sense, like education data, which ignore the actual computer spread and the gap between those data and reality. you have gdp data in your report, but obviously, nobody checked to see if the gdp per
capita data you are using trucks between international andization, which have a 2 to 1 different. -- tracks between international organizations, which had a two to one difference. if we do not track the effectiveness, does it do any good to have measures of the effectiveness? >> ok, where we start? [laughter] let me try to deal with the first question. and then i will get to the multi part question. on the intangible benefits, yes, we do recognize there are some. but what i was trying to say that if there are intangible benefits for a program or policy, they should be articulated. we should find out after we go into the arctic -- into the audit.
i recall an instance where we were doing an audit the guy said, oh, our purpose is to do this and this. and we said, we ask you when we did the audit were your reasons work and you gave them to congress. we took your justification and applied it. particularly when you are looking at so many ip programs prove they had intangible benefits that they could not enumerate. that is not what they told congress. i do not do policy. i do not do military policy war tactics. -- or tactics. we do not do for a policy or tactics. we tried to get the policy. we say, this is your program, this is your policy, this is the one reason why you are doing it, and then we see if it is being done correctly according to the reasons you have are ticketed for doing so. we do recognize russia are
articulated for doing it. -- then we see it is being done correctly according to the reasons you have articulated for doing so. we do recognize there are intangibles. please articulate why. in response to the other questions, i should just say, yes. we agree. we're looking at some of the planning. and i agree with you. we are having a problem finding out what kind of planning is going on. if anything, this speech is to go people into -- we hope your doing the planning and we hope you keep these seven questions in mind. i was just in afghanistan asking whether they were planning. can you show is the plans?
we have not seen them. we assume they are there. we have been told they are. we have not demanded them. each one of my assistant ig's is looking at the dot process. -- the dod process. it will be looking at the impact overall to read instruction. is the planning good? i do not know. that is far want to highlight one particular problem that i had. i have seen this for years with sam nunn, not surprised. that is, this mad rush to spend money. plans began, we will get the money out the door before the clock -- plans be damned, we will get the money out the door before the clock strikes 12. that is my fear, that we are just pump in the money out the door. you talked about the effectiveness and about our data. i will be honest, some of our
data is probably not right. but we get it from the government. now i know, from the government. what can i say? we put out one of the most massive data calls of any u.s. agency every quarter. i have an entire staff that does that. and i have asked if we are not asking for the right data, please tell us what to look for. my extend that offer to anyone. if it is a reasonable request, we want that data. part of the mandate, and part of what makes us unique at sigar is that we are required four times a year to do this mass of data call. if you look at the villa and -- at the quarterly report, three- quarters of the report is looking at all of that date and trying to put reasoning behind it. if you go to the reporter mitra be the one stop shopping for
information on afghanistan reconstruction. are there problems with the data? yes, and that is why we footnote where we get it. and you are right, some of the data that our u.s. government is using is not the same data that the world bank is using or that is being used by other of our eyes. -- our allies. and i have only been there for three quarters. the first time i sat down and looked at the quarterly report, and you and i even had a conversation about that. the data that we are getting on the effectiveness of the afghan security forces, you had doubts and i had doubts. i told my people to start pulling the string. this is where action is very useful. i hate to say this, but i really rely upon you all here in the community in washington, d.c. and elsewhere who study the issues. you study the issues. we are adjusted counts and
investigators. -- we are just a accountants and investigators. you said there was a question there. i thought there was a doubtful question there. and we have been pulling the string. and in the latest quarterly report, we raised concerns. raised in the second quarterly report. we have raised it again. now we will begin to look at what is behind the numbers. it looks like our data on the forces, the afghan security forces that we will be relying upon, it may be focused -- bogus. we're pulling the string. we are open to any suggestions as well as any criticism of our data request. we would like to be as broad and thorough and deep as we can, but we can only rely upon --
i cannot subpoena government agencies, but i can send a nasty letter to their bosses saying that they are not helpful. the policymakers on the hill and in academia, and in the policy centers like csis, harvey -- how the tools to oppose judge ennahda and -- have the tools to help us to judge the effectiveness of programs in afghanistan. >> mark scheider, international crisis group. >> this is a follow-up to tony's question. when you look up the milestone rating definitions for the nsf, one is, the department exists,
but they cannot accomplish the mission. but the second one says, if they cannot accomplish the mission without significant coalition assistance, and that affects many of the entities within the defense ministry interior. have you looked at the downward trend in isaf and u.s. forces, which is providing benefits assistance? and as you move toward 2014, many more of those entities without isaf assistance will be unable to accomplish their mission, and therefore unable to provide the security that reconstruction requires. >> the second question is over here. >> i returned from afghanistan a few weeks ago.
i do not wish to announce my affiliation. you use terms like results, but it is not whether you are on retain the ban for the buck on what is being spent, and the difference to trinidad and the ultimate impact on how the afghans perceive -- the difference between that and the ultimate impact on how the afghan perceive the legitimacy of their government, which is the goal in the country. without a clearly stated role for howard is measured and i'm not sure how you can expect partners to do what you are asking. are you monitoring, or doing an evaluation of the ultimate
impact to the intervention? >> let me start with the ansf question. and this is a partial answer to the second question, too. although we have the largest presence, and i think we have taken the lead on a construction, there're other inspector general's working out there. we tried to coordinate our work with the dod, state, and a idps inspector general. . and aid inspector general. the numbers and what our process is for rating. we have raised some concerns and products even before i got there about the standards for ratings. we have basically carved out, in conjunction with the other
looking out, support for ansf. the way the statute has been defined, reconstruction includes the support, training, the bullets, the guns, the building of bases and all of that, and actually, the salaries of the ansf. over 50% of the reconstruction money is going to the ansf. that is how important is as was the security is to reconstruction. we are looking at a lot of the support for the nsf thethe ansf, a fuel, weapons, literacy
training, and we are looking up the numbers. where do they get the numbers of how many ansf troops are archly there, how many have deserted -- are actually there, how many have deserted, and so forth. if you do not have security, the question about governance, the question about reconstruction pales in comparison. let me turn to lend legitimacy of the government. that is a policy question. we are not asking that. we are asking about the specific auditing of programs and policies and procedures if. -- procedures. if it is to have legitimacy to the government, that is a stated goal of the program. we will take a stated goal and
audit against it. in one case, the government was supposed to bring the program closer to the people -- one program was a promise to bring the government closer to the people and insure the central government. we looked at that audit and said, we cannot be certain how you did, but violence went up, so we are not certain you accomplish your goal. one question is, and actually the penultimate question is about the legitimacy of the government. i hope that answers your question. >> any final thoughts you would like to leave us with? >> i think it is something that i picked up while i was in afghanistan. keep this in mind. december, 2014 is not the end of the world. afghanistan will be there. the afghans will be there. and we will be there, as far as
we can tell, until congress tells me differently. not only the u.s. government and assistance programs, but sigar will be there. we hope to work closely with our policy makers as well as the implement jurors -- implementers to ensure that the next time frame we are successful, because that will be the reconstruction era. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for your words and for your time today. thank you everybody for coming. this video will be posted on the csis web site. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> a quick reminder that the house will be in at 2:00 p.m.
eastern today, in about 20 minutes, and they will give one- minute speeches. then they will go into recess until 5:00 p.m. this week, members will vote on submitting a balanced budget to congress -- to the president. the senate will vote to reauthorize the violence against women act. live coverage here on c-span of the house, and of the senate on c-span2. president obama is holding meetings today with local leaders regarding gun-control. that will be live at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. john kerry was sworn in as secretary of state this past friday. he had his first full day on the job this morning. secretary carry --
of the employees on -- of the department of state, it is a privilege and honor to welcome you here today. [applause] your wealth of experience and leadership qualities will guide us in the challenging times ahead. as the son of a diplomat and a member of the u.s. senate, deeply engaged in american diplomacy, you bring to this office a unique perspective and knowledge of both politics and diplomacy, and of the importance of a professional career in foreign service as the backbone diplomacy in the department of state.
despite our necessary focus on conflicts and counterterrorism, our values, vision, and interest call for an overarching undiplomatic gauge magnum recognized worldwide as a leadership role worthy of the united states on behalf of the greater good of mankind. it is truly a great pleasure for us to welcome you here, and we trust that under your stewardship, all parts of the state department team will gain in stature and recognition and enhance our professional capabilities to be fully prepared to meet the challenges these difficult times demand. as we commit our a great suppord loyalty to you, mr. secretary, i also take this opportunity to express our gratitude to
outgoing secretary hillary rodham clinton -- [applause] for her tireless efforts to promote u.s. national interests overseas, to strengthen the department state, to promote and raise the profile of diplomacy and development as critical tools of our national statecraft. followe all together your leadership, we look forward to continuing this effort. thank you so much. [applause] >> it is my great honor and privilege to introduce someone who is -- who passionately cares about this institution, about the men and women who are geared not only because you are
the son of a diplomat and not only because you have been the chairman of the foreign relations committee and not only because you have traveled the world on our behalf but because you care passionately about what we do and the vision in which we attempt to try to show the rest of the world. on behalf of the men and women, not only in this room but all over the world who are watching, only because you have traveled let me introduce to you the 68 secretary of state, john kerry. [applause] >> thank you very much. wow, way back there. thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much, susan and thank you very much for that welcome, secretary nides was an old friend.
i am grateful to him and i told in this is the first and only time he has never bowed to me. [laughter] i will never get that again but anyway -- thank god i had a couple of photo id so i could get in. [laughter] i am happy for that. kennedy, thank you for your leadership, ambassador marshall i am looking forward to working with you and all of you. i liked my cubicle over there in transition corner but i cannot tell you how great it feels to be liberated and know that i actually get to explore the whole building now. [laughter] i have been freed. i am the first person you guys freed. [laughter] if i am wondering around the building later and i want a bigger office, it is not because -- wind up in your office, it is
not because i am there for a meeting. it is because i am lost and i need directions. [laughter] just tell me who you are and what you do and tell me where i am. [laughter] i will rely on that. here is the big question before the country and the world and the state department after the last eight years -- can a man actually run the state department? [laughter] i don't know. as the saying goes -- i have big heels to fill. this is beyond a pleasure. i will usher five words the certainly no sitting senator or former senator had ever uttered
and that is that these remarks will be brief. i promise you that. i don't know what we are doing for the productivity of the building right now. [laughter] if this goes on too long, i may get a call from the president on a recall. [laughter] uttered and that is that thesei want toy predecessor, secretary clinton and i want to thank her entire team. they tirelessly advocated the values of our country and pushed for the accomplishment of and a number of things to advance the interests of our nation. i know from my conversations with hillary how passionate she was about this undertaking and how much confidence and the gratitude she had for the work that every single one of you do. i just want to join with all of you today in saying to her, a job well done, the nation is grateful, the world is grateful, thank you hillary clinton, and back to two per team. --
and thank you to her team. thank you. [applause] also, i want to thank president obama for his trust in me to take on this awesome task and for his trust in every single one of you and what you do every single day. i think it is beyond fair to say that this president's vision and what he has implemented from your efforts over the course of the last years without any question, has restored america's reputation and place in the world and we thank you for what you have done to do that. [applause] i said the other day at the hearings, if any of you had a chance to see any of it --
i said the senate was in my blood and it is after 28 + is. but it is also true that foreign service is in my genes and everything we do here is. i have a sister who worked for most of her career in new york at the un and most recently at the un mission. my wife, who was born in mozambique, and you will see here on wednesday, speaks five languages. at some location, she did translating but worked mostly with the un trusteeship council and as powerful beliefs in the mission of this great department and usaid. and my father, as was mentioned, spent a number of years as a foreign service officer and i spent some years of stewardship on the foreign
relations committee and oversight of the department, or set of the budget and everything we do and so i'm glad to represent your favorite committee among many favored committees. i will tell you that i have things to learn, for sure. i know that as much as i have to learn, i have learned some things. some of what i have learned is how difficult life can be for people in the foreign service who have to operate kids and families and move from school to school and struggle with those difficulties. it is particularly not easy and as much more complicated in a much more dangerous world. i understand that. i also understand how critical it is that you have somebody there advocating for you. the dangers could not be more clear. are reminded by the stars and names on the wall and we are
particularly reminded by chris stevens and plan dougherty and glenn smith than ever but still mourns the loss and we will. i pledge to you this -- i will not let their patriotism and their bravery be obscured by politics, number one. number two, i guarantee you -- [applause] i guarantee you that beginning this morning, when a report for duty upstairs, everything i do will be focused on the security and safety of our people. have tough decisions to make but i guarantee i will do everything i can to live up to the high standards that secretary clinton and her team put in place.
i mentioned earlier the earlier part of my life. i was back in boston a few weeks ago and i was rummaging through some old stuff and i found the first evidence of my connection to this great diplomatic enterprise -- my first diplomatic passport. [applause] -- there is. number 2927 - there weren't a lot of people than. a you open it up, there's picture of a little 11-year-old john kerry and no, you will not get to see it. [laughter] in the description, it says height, 4 feet, 3, hair brown -- as you could see the only thing that has changed is height.
the first step in it, the first arrival was 1954 in le havre. back then, we went over and spent six days at sea on the ss america and the state department and united states government sent to us over, the entire family, first class. don't get any ideas. [laughter] anyway, we went to berlin this a not too long after the war and i used to ride my bicycle around berlin as my pastime and road everywhere. the church where the steeple burned down. past brandenburg gate.
i went past hitler's tomb where these amazing, huge concrete slabs had blown up and i roamed around. was stunning hello control there -- there was.control thei one day with my sense of 12- year-old adventure, i used this passport to pass through into the east sector, the russian sector. i bicycled around and i will tell you, as a 12 year-old kid, i really did notice the starkness, the desolation. i was thinking about the other day that if the tabloids new today i would see headlines that say "kerry's early communist connections." [laughter] that's the world we live in, folks. i would reassure them by saying that i really noticed the difference between east and west. two people were dressed in dark clothing and held their heads
down. i noticed all this. there was no joy in those streets. when i came back, i felt this remarkable sense of relief and a great lesson about the virtue of freedom and the virtue of the principles and ideals that we live by that drive us. i was enthralled. when my dad learned what he had -- what i had done, he was not enthralled. [laughter] i got a tongue lashing and i was told i could have been an international incident and he could have lost his job. this very passport was prom -- was promptly yanked and i was summarily punished. anyway, lessons learned. that was a great adventure and 57 years later today, this is another great adventure.
i am so proud to enter into the harry truman building, the mother ship, as you call it. i will tell you, harry truman was office was just down a hall from mine in the united states senate, within about a year being president, came and said the principles of american foreign policy are firmly -- the foundation is firmly rooted in righteousness and justice. we get to do great things here. this is a remarkable place. i am here today to rescue, on -- to ask you, on behalf of the country, i need your help. president obama need your help. to help us, to do everything we
can to strengthen our nation and to carry those ideals out into the world. here, we can do the best of things you can do in government. that's what excites me. we get to try to make our nation safer. get to try to make peace in the world, a world where there is far too much conflict, far too much killing. there are alternatives. we get to try to cure disease and empower people who have no voice. we get to talk about empowering people through our ideals and through those ideals hopefully they can change their lives. that's what's happening in the world today. we get to live the ideals of our nation which and in doing , so i think we can make our country stronger and we can make the world more peaceful. so i look forward to joining with you as we march down this
road together living the ideals of our country, which is the best imagined. what other job can you get up and advance the cause of nation and keep faith with the ideals of your country on which it is founded and most completeically meet our obligations to our fellow travel letters on this planet. that's as good as it gets. and i'm proud to be part of it with you. so now let's get to work. thank you very much. [applause] >> secretary of state carrie earlier today. i don't know if you missed any of his remarks you can see it again in the c-span video library. we are going live now to the u.s. house today. they will begin with 1 minute speeches and the chamber will recess this afternoon.
live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we thank you that we are a nation fashioned out of die peoples and cultures, brought forth on this continent in a way not unlike the ancient people of israel. as out of a desert, you led our american ancestors to this promised land. for they declared their independence and constitute add new nation upon unalienable rights given to us by you our creator.
bless our nation with wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. and bless the members of this people's house. renew in us the adoption by your spirit that we may affirm our freedoms not only with the conviction in the way we understand others, but in ourselves by actions proven. -- protch beyond words. bless -- proven beyond words. bless us this day and every day for all that is done here be for your greater honor and glory. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: please join us in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
the speaker: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. family budgets, small businesses budgets, cities budgets, churches budgets, schools budgets. my state of north carolina budgets. but washington does not. instead, year after year budgetless washington spends every single cent of the money it takes from the american people and $1 trillion more. not since 2009 has the democrat senate bothered to pass a budget. and not since 2010 has president obama submitted his plan for a budget on time. when you don't plan, it's easy to overcommit, and when a
country overcommits year after year after year, it ends up $16.4 trillion in debt. that doesn't just rob our future, it hurts americans looking for jobs today. while government spending ballooned $8.5 -- 8.5 million more people have given up looking for work since 2009. mr. speaker, the unchecked spending has got to stop. it's time to get this government on a budget. it's time for the president to submit a credible plan. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker, yesterday the defense secretary leon panetta warned if sequester happens on march 1 it will damage the readiness of the united states of america, it will go right at red kwlidness, maintenance,
training. mr. courtney: the navy has told us it will cancel maintence in on 23 ships, reduce flying hours by 55%. and reduce steaming days by 22%. the bipartisan policy center has warned us that a million jobs will be lost if sequester happens. what is the response of the majority party? the budget chair, mr. ryan, simply said, sequester is going to happen. we can't afford to lose those cuts. for the sake of our economy, for the sake of our national defense, we have to do better than that. congress must adopt the president's balanced budget and avoid the economic and military calamity, a calamity that can easily be avoided. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the speaker:: mr. speaker, president obama missed a great opportunity today to help our economy. this was supposed to be the day that the president submitted his budget to the congress.
but it's not coming. it's going to be late. some reports say that it could be as long as a month late. i think that's too bad. our economy could use some presidential leadership right now. on thursday, the president disbanded his jobs council after a grand total of four meetings in two years. then as americans got to work on friday, they learn their economy still isn't creating enough jobs. the unemployment rate actually went up. now if government spending does cause growth as the president believes, we shouldn't be having these problems. then maybe it wouldn't be so disappointing that his budget is late. well, we are having trouble in large part because spending is the problem. it's what's chasing jobs overseas and causing much anxiety about our future. one example of something the
president's budget could have addressed is his sequester. a sequester is washington speak for automatic spending cuts. the president first proposed the sequester in 2011, and insisted that it be part of the debt limit agreement. now twice the house has passed legislation to replace the president's sequester with commonsense reforms that would reduce spending and preserve and strengthen our safety net for future generations. we spread it all out. we have done our work. because we are committed to getting spending under control. and we have long said there is a better way to cut spending. unfortunately our democrat colleagues in the senate haven't taken action. they haven't acted on our plan to replace the president's sequester or haven't authored one of their own. what we should do is replace the president's sequester with responsible reforms that will help balance the budget in 10 years.
our goal is to grow the economy, expand opportunity and prosperity, and ensure american maintains -- america maintains its leading role in the world with a strong national defense. to do that we need to budget responsibly. we need a budget that reflects those priorities. but to replace the president's sequester, we need our democrat colleagues to get serious about spending. i wish i could give the american people more cause for optimism, but we see the president's budget is late, and the senate hasn't passed a budget in nearly four years. this week the house will act on a measure introduced by the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, that requires the president to submit a balanced budget. because we know and i think the american people agree, spending is the problem and the sooner we solve our spending problem, the sooner we'll solve our jobs problem, too. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, in 1977 bob and anna williams moved back to columbia, south carolina, from alabama and opened a restaurant. due to their hard work he's now one of south carolina's finest restaurant chains celebrating 35 years of service. this real country cooking operation has grown to serve over 12,000 patrons today, at 15 different locations. not only do people across the palmetto state choose to dine there for the home-style cooking, they also return time after time for the exceptional customer service. for the past few decades, my wife and i have always cherished taking our children, grandchildren, and mother -in-law to this great restaurant where we enjoy completing the meal with a arm serving of peach cobbler. i'm extremely grateful for the
williams family, their three generations of service, and the jobs they have provided across the midlands. i wish them future success and look forward to dining with them for another 35 years. in conclusion, god bless our troops. we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor the memory of one of my constituents and a dear friend, ted owingle. he was a loving husband and father, loyal friend, and highly effective public leader with a great passion for his country, state, and community. over the last decade ted's work touched the careers of hoosier elected leaders all across our state. on a personal note, i will be forever indeaded -- indebted to ted owingle. he was one of the first and
vocal supporters in my campaign and his sixth district chairman played a central role in last year's commain for u.s. congress. mr. messer: ted loved his country and state and the indiana republican party. his passing game way too soon. ted owingle will never be fore-- ogle will never be forgeten and he will be missed. i ask the entire district to keep their children and the whole family in your thoughts and prayers in the coming weeks and months. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? without objection. >> mr. speaker, last week on the fourth anniversary of the lily ledbetter fair pay act i met with women leaders in my kiss trict to discuss the importance ensuring women earn equal pay for equal work. the women i met with told
personal stories and powerful stories of how continued wage disparities have affected their families. in cities like flint, saga gnaw, bay city women still only earn about 74 cents for every dollar men do. that is unacceptable. mr. speaker, the time is long overdue for women to be paid equal pay for equal work. mr. kildee: women make up half our work force yet they are not paid the same as men for the same work. this means women have less money for groceries, for rent, for childcare, for the everyday needs of their families. mr. speaker, that's why i have co-sponsored the paycheck fairness act which seeks to close disparities in pay. it's time to pass the paycheck fairness act. until women receive equal pay for equal work, we will not be the just society we ought to be. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house
for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, last week we received troubling economic news. in january, unemployment went up and 169,000 people gave up looking for work, and the economy stopped growing. i rise today in solidarity with those looking for work in higher income to pay their bills, loans, and mortgages. those seeking a better lot want to know, where are the jobs? before we address any other issue grabbing headlines today, congress and the president need to make a priority of unleashing the potential of hardworking americans and creating the conditions for a healthy economy. mr. rothfus: we must balance our budget. reform the tax dode. reduce excessive regulation. and expand energy production. i call on my colleagues in this house to refocus their attention in their work to accomplish these goals so the
american people can get back to pursuing their dreams. i thank the speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. america has a spending problem. the numbers ill lie with the national debt at $16 trillion and climbing each american's share is more than $50,000. things only stand to get worse. in fact, federal spending is now projected to double to 40% of g.d.p. in the next three decades. this out-of-control out-of-control spending is a threat to our future. the american people agree, polls by gallup, the winston group and politico last month indicated that americans
overwhelmingly agree on addressing this. despite the facts, president obama and his fellow democrats continue to deny we have a spending problem. pointing to more revenue as the answer to our debt crisis. mr. bentivolio: we are trying to find more meaningful reforms to the entitlement programs that are driving us deeper into debt and a fair, cleaner tax code. we are committed to saving our economy for future generations, and i hope the president and his fellow democrats will join us. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, i am writing to inform you of my
resignation effective immediately from the house committee on the budget. it is my intention that this is a leave of absence as i have to serve on this committee again in a future congress. if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly or your staff can contact my deputy chief of staff, ann raider, signed sincerely, debbie wasserman schultz, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resignation is accepted. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately
guest: you get a much more secure border than you had in 2001 when we had the 9/11 attacks. you have better monitoring of who is come ago cross the borders. you have better patrolling. you have more obstacles to illegal immigration. that's what you're paying for as a taxpayer. >> as far as the various departments are concerned, what do they do, what specifically when it comes to border security, what is their role? >> the u.s. border patrol are the people on the front lines working the line, making sure that catching the people coming across illegally, stopping continue band and customs and border protection is a broader thing. they are running drones, they are running surveillance
aircraft looking over the border. you have ice, you have immigration in customs enforcement. they are also looking at people here in the united states. they incorporated the immigration naturalization service. they are also enforcing customs regulations making sure we don't have continue band, count fit goods, that sort of thing. also by the way, it has to be noted. customs and border protection which is part of homeland security also is trying to stop south band continue brand, that means guns, cash from drug deals and that kind of thing. and the u.s. coast guard which is part of it which governs the maritime ports and you can add t.s.a. which screens us at the airports and does more in terms of continue band and making
sure bad things don't come into the united states. they've always spent this kind of money. this is down from what it was in the past. what happened with d.h.s. which was created in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. we're coming up on the 10th anniversary, the spending rose very rapidly over a number of years then it leveled off, now it's declining and we'll see what sequestration does to our border capabilities. host: we invite you to call. what is the obama administration's approach to border security?
guest: it's interesting because it's becoming very come plegs. there is a strong border security to the imflation reform bill that's being discussed and to the proposal that was put together by the gang of eight senators who sat down and came up with a new proposal. their border security component is somewhat specific and their whole immigration reform package hinges on securing that border. the obama administration proposal has more to do with sbror enforcement of how we enforce verification of employment. the fact that people are here in the united states legally and that kind of thing, and is less specific on border element of that. now, to me, the whole hinge centers around what is a secure border. what is border security? and in fact, there is no definition.
it's subject to different interpretation s and what they are doing in the senate proposal which i think is going to be the one that goes forward and is tweaked and debated and discussed, they want to put together a commission in border security. and it's this commission that's supposed to certify whether a secure border has been achieved. but if you don't define what that is, i don't know how you can certify that it's achieved and go on with the rest of the reform. so it's a very big question that's being kicked down the road. >> some of the senators debating this are saying don't get too hung up on the idea of what complete border security means. guest: that's right. and it's never been fully defined since 9/11 and before. there's always been illegal crossing and contraband come ago cross. some of the worst was during prohibition when canadian club was sending whisky into the
united states. so it's a very squishy concept. you look around the world. what is a secure border? well, i would argue that the most secure border is between north and korea. you've got mines and patrols that shoot to kill. that's not i think what we want our border to be. by the same token we've built obstacles and walls. there was a concept for continuous wall. that was kind of abandonned. but the border is far more secure than when this effort started in the wake of 9/11 host: and president obama referenced what president bush did. can you reference his accomplishments. guest: president bush started something calls the secure border initiative in 2006. and there was an attempt to build a virtuele wall, they
called it sbi net. there was recruitment drive for border pral. it's up to about 21,000 people. there was creation of e verify where employers had to verify people are legally employable. there was the creation of u.s. visit. that is a program we know everybody who is coming into the united states. a lot of the proposals in the senate con cement simply sort of intense fi these programs that already exist. one of these programs is an exit strategy for u.s. visit. we know who is coming in but we don't know who has overstayed their visa, who is leaving, when they left and d.h.s. t department of homeland security
can't implement this. ten years ago the accountability office estimated it would cost $15 billion to implement that. it would be higher now. then there is questioning of credentialing. president obama is talking about aver fyable tamper proof card that people will get. we've had all kinds of discussion about real i.d. and making drivers licenses up to -- taking them up to a standard at a national level. and that's been a complex issue. there is discussion again in the senate proposal in improving technology on the border. they have been worked on that. s.b.i. net was worked on for five years and they abandonned it. it is very complex and very costly if they emp meant what they want to do host: one stath, the u.s.
border 2,000 miles t fence about 260 miles. >> a fence is not appropriate for every situation. and what they have is not a continuous fence like the great wall of china. they have a series of barriers that make it difficult to come across or make it more likely you are going to be caught. there is a static idea of the border. the border is dynamic and the enforcement has to be dynamic and as they enforce different sectors, the challenge moves to a different place. so the border patrol closed off or made tight ter urban areas where people were coming across in texas and especially around san diego and this effort proceeded nine live eleven. so when they closed that off because people could come through a drain pime and disappear in san diego and get away with it.
they made that tighter. so what did the illegals do? they went to arizona. so now they are crossing through the dessert. we've made it tighter there. now the valley is more of a challenge. it's a dynamic issue. it's kind of cat and mouse. you can't separate u.s. border security on the southwest border from what is going on in mexico. and mexico has been in this practically a state of civil war since 2006. there are cartels fighting with each other. there are terrible masacres and at the same time as i mentioned there are guns coming down from the united states. so it's pretty complex and it's very dynamic. host: for calls this is ron from new york, independent line. caller: i had a question about the contraband that comes from
the u.s. down. how do they get the guns across from fast and furious? were the border agents told to waive these guys on or how did that work? guest: with fast and furious, the a.t.f., the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms and explosives allowed about 2,000 guns to go into mexico so they could trace these guns. and the problem was that they lost track of some of the guns. and one of these guns was used to kill a u.s. border patrol agent. which in a terrible, terrible way showed the success of fast and furious. and it proved that this smuggling of guns was not only being used to sicrert the mexican government it was coming back to the united
states. fast and furious is considered a terrible failure and a lot of the people who were involved in it have faced dismissal and disgrace. however, it did show where those u.s. guns are going and how they are being used. host: related to the larger topic of border security, if they are so secure why do we still have immigrants, guns and drugs coming and going? guest: it comes to your definition of border security. the united states has borders that are never fully secure. it is not an impersonalable border unless you want to do what the north koreans do and put down mine fields, there is always going to be some ill liss it traffic. now nap secretary said it is
more secure than it has ever been. the number of border pralmen are up. the monitoring is much more severe than it has been in the past. yet, there are still remote areas and there is certainly still contraband coming through and it is not an impersonalable border. and the decisions that the members of the congress will have to make and this commission if they set it up is do we want a truly impersonalable border? >> the berlin wall was impermeable and people still got across. >> the israelis because they have a much smaller area have succeeded and they also built a wall not across the entire
order but in very sensitive place. there used to be terrorist sniping at israeli highways. they built that wall and solved the problem. it's a horrible ugly wall that straited communities. the time i was there was before that wall it was an open border really. you could just go across. now it's much tougher. however, they solved their immediate problem. if we want to build a wall like that and if we're willing to bear the cost of it, because this is very costly, then we can do it. host: republican line. caller: good morning. my question is part of the problem it was border enforcement was never enforced by any party. it was never enforced and what
i hear is it doesn't work, border security never worked. immigration system never worked. it never worked because negotiate party never enforced it. they played around and said it was enforcing. negotiate party was enforcing anything. another ipping thing, how can you enforce something and you encourage people once they get here, you give them drivers license and jobs and economic benefits? that's encouragement. guest: i have to take issue with that because the border has been enforced to some degree or another. if you go back to the texas rangers they were enforcing the border after tax tax became part of the united states. the question has been the level of enforcement. the uts border patrol was set to stop booze from coming across the borders. but has the level of enforcement been commensurate with the issue drk with the
challenge? i mean in the 1990's when the united states economy was rip roaring and growing, people were come ago cross the border in large numbers. there was a 1986 border reform act and bonled reagan gave an amnesty and they tried to deal with it then. then when the united states economy became this huge load stone people were coming across in much larger numbers. actually what has happened, as we have tightened our enforce. and tightened security at the border, people who are here illegally can't go back to their native country which is mainly mexico. or they are afraid if they go back they won't be able to get back here. so they stay here. so now we have what's come to a general consensus of 11 million illegal ail yens in a limbo. they have broken the law. they are afraid to leave
because they can't go back. and the question before the congress and administration is how do you deal with this? this is what all those proposals are that are being circulated. host: texas caller. guest: i say put the u.s. guard and reeverybody ises on the border and do the same thing we do in ask and we start protecting america instead of the rest of the world. guest: it's interesting because the guard has been on the border for some years. it was called operation jump start. they were in the administration of george w. bush. the guard from all the states helped build the barriers that are up there now. there have been instances we used military forces on the border and there was a case back in the 1990's where u.s. marines were on the border and used deadly force against a
shap hard who was running his sheep across the border and killed a 17-year-old kid. so the military has been used when necessary. now the theory is ha the u.s. border patrol is up to full strength and they no longer need that military support. and the military support was administrative, a lot was in intelligence. it wasn't all front line border deployment. we did a lot of articles on operation jump start and the use of the national guard on the border. so that is not necessarily a solution although it is a usable one and it's also an expensive one. what the members of the senate are talking about is boosting the strength of the border patrol yet again. but they don't specify what those jobs would be or what they would do or to what the end strength of the border patrol would be in f their program is inactive. host: about 18,000 500 people
along the southwest border about 2200 people on the northern border. guest: right. we just came out of afe super bowl. when the n.f.l. wouldn't run an advertisement for border pral people back then in the super bowl program and it was outrageous considering they get taxpayer supported protection and they changed that policy. so ultimately the border patrol was brought up to full strength. and that's the deployment that you just mentioned. if the senators want a larger border patrol and highing more people, that's fine as long as they pay for it. host: how effective are drones? guest: drones have proven very effective.
they have about 10 drones. those are predators. i think they want 14 more. the congress said that we can eyes more civilian drones and there is supposed to be a plan drawn up by 2015 of how you deploy these drones. because not only is d.c.p. going to deploy the drones, other agencies can also deploy drones. and that means county sheriff's, state trop trooper's and you've got to come up with a plan so they don't run into each other and everyone knows what everyone else is watching. and something theals needs to be said is everybody thinks drones are great and it's true certainly in pakistan where there is no challenge to these drones. but it's not going to be long and we did a big article and we have a cover in our october issue on road drones because
the cartels, the drug cartels will start using drones to surveil the border and deliver drugs. to see where they can get across. as it is now, the cartels and smug letters do watch our border, our side soft border and they even build towers to see on the other side. so it's going to be a very crowded air space over the border and that needs to be sorted out. >> here is the cover of the homeland security today. >> tell us a little bit about your tub pli indication. guest: it is the foremost pub bli indication on homeland security. we've been doing it for nine years. we have covered homeland security and all of it's its aspects and always have and i hope always will.
host: good morning. caller: i've only goten in twice in the last six years. and part of my comment is the file you're to discuss the topic of ill lits drugs. earlier in this segment i think it was mentioned a prohibition on alcohol. i think we had big alcohol trade between canada and the united states. we now have it with the trade of drugs primarily across the southern border and we're all aware of the horrible violence that's happening in mexico. and of course, we're even in every neighborhood in the united states there is crime, violence associated not with
drugs themselves but as a by product of them being illegal, the i liss sit market that comes with that. i hope c-span will devote a segment on whether or not it's truly rational to have this drug prohibition. because there are problems that range from security of the border, you lock up -- host: we've done that before and thank you for the comment. do you have a comment about border security? caller: how much border security could be relieved if we took the element of smuggling drullings out of it. guest: very interesting. i don't think anyone knows. after prohibition was dropped, all the smuggling cartels then,
and that's what gave rise to the mafia as we know it, they went into other forms of illegal activity. they tried to make up their profits they lost. one can fairly well expect the same kind of thing is going to happen depending on what kind of measure it is united states take. say if we legalize marijuana or something like that. they are a business, they have to find other markets. that's what they do. they wouldn't disappear. it change it is enforcement element of border security. one thing i would suggest if anyone wants to see what goes on on a border national geographic has border wars and you can see what the t.s.a. and border patrol does on a day-to-day basis with people and contraband and keeping the border secure. host: a question off of twitter. why can't we just have soldiers with guns stationed at the
borders? guest: if you want to do that at a time when we are looking at major defense cuts and at the time when we need our soldiers to fight our wars, yes, you could do that if you wanted to do that. but nobody really wants to do that and there are several reasons for. this first of all, it's not really the mission of the united states military. the mission is to fight our wars abroad and hopefully they stay abroad should they need to be fought. another thing is the worder patrol is built and trind deal with the problems at the border we have. they know when the use deadly force usually and when not to. they know that there are law enforcement agency rather than a military defense agency. so as i said the national guard has been used on the border rather extensively over the
past ten years but it's not cost effective and it's a different mission and it detracts from the military's mission which is to fight wars abroad. host: lynn, you are on. caller: good morning. david, specifically i was wondering about whatever happened with the minute men that were patrolling -- >> see "washington journal" live every morning on c-span. live to president obama live in minneapolis today gaining support for gun control legislation. >> we see gun violence between rival gangs with shootings happening just blocks are from here. we have seen nents in this neighborhood in his own home while running up the stairs away from the gunfire which his mother is with us today.
>> a mentally ill employee sholt and killed six co-workers and then himself. >> this will culture of gun violence is something that president obama, this police department and this community will not accept. there isn't one easy solution to ending gun violence but fortunately here we have taken a comprehensive approach working together with law enforcement agencies and suburb greater minnesota departments, our county and city attorney's offices, our partners at the state of minnesota and around
the midwest, the a.t.f., probation, social service and mental health advocates and grassroots communalt groups and residents which we know that we will only succeed in any gun violence if we work as partners. many of you are here today and i thank you for your partnership. fortunely one of our best partners is president obama. we have a president who supports law enforcement and has the courage to seek out and implement solutions to gun violence. for example the president is proposing funding to help agencies add resource officers in the schools. this is an approach we've taken in minneapolis and we know it works in crime prevention and mentoring our most vulnerable youth. this is one example of president obama's commitment to help communities combat gun
although i was commenting they don't really have winter in washington, d.c. so i've gotten soft over these last four years. when i was in chicago, this was nothing. now it's something. but i'm grateful for all of you being here today. i want to thank the chief and the entire minneapolis police department for having me here today. there are a number of other people that i just ant to acknowledge here. first of all, a wonderful man and one of america's greatest public everybody is vants is here walter mondale, former vice president. . your outstanding governor is here. [applause] two grate mayors, mayor of
minnesota and mayor chris coleman of st. paul. >> and your outstanding congressional delegation. [applause] and i should acknowledge my outstanding attorney general. what's your name again? [laughter] >> he does a great job every single day and i could not be prouder of eric holder for his leadership on this issue in particular. now i just had a chance to sit down with some local police officers, but also community
leaders, as well as folks who themselves have been victims or whose families have been victims of gun violence to hear their ideas about how we can protect our kids and address the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country. because if we're serious about preventing the kinds of tragedies that happened in newtown or the tragedies that happen every day in places like chicago or philadelphia or minneapolis. then law enforcement and other community leaders must have a seat at the table. all the folks standing here behind me today, they are the ones on the front line of this fight. they see the awful consequences, the lives lost, the families shattered. they know what works, they know what doesn't work and they now how to get things done without
regard for politics. so we've had a very productive discussion. and one of the things that struck me was that even though those who were sitting around that table represented very different communities from big cities to small towns, they all believe it's time to take some basic common sense steps to reduce gun violence. we may not be able to prevent every masacre or random shooting. no law or set of laws can keep our children completely safe. but if there is even one thing we can do, if there is just one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try. that's been the philosophy here in minneapolis which a few years back you suffered a spike in violent crime involving young people.
so this city came together and launched a number of youth initiatives that reduced the number of youth injured by guns by 40%. so when it comes to protecting our children from gun violence you've shown progress is possible. we've still got to deal with the 60% that remains but that 40% means lives saved, parent's whose hearts aren't broken, community that is aren't terrorized and afraid. we don't have to agree on everything to agree it's time to do something. [applause] that's my main message here today. and each of us has a role to play. a few weeks ago i took action on my own to strengthen background checks, to help schools get resource officers
if they want them and to direct the centers for disease control to study violence because looking at the evidence was considered somehow tough politics. and so congress had taken the approach that we don't want to know. that's never the answer to a problem is not wanting to know what is going on. so we've been able to take some steps through administrative action. while these steps are important, real and lasting change requires congress to do its part and to do it soon. not to wait. the good news is that we're starting to see a consensus emerge about the action congress needs to take. the vast majority of americans, including a majority of gun owners, support requiring criminal background checks for
anyone trying to buy a gun. [applause] so right now democrats and republicans in the senate are working on a bill that would ban anyone from selling a gun to somebody legally prohibited from owning one. that is common sense. there is no reason why we can't get that done. that is not a liberal idea or conservative idea or democratic or republican idea. that is a smart idea. we want to keep those guns out of the hands of folks who shouldn't have them. senators from both parties have also come together and proposed a bill that would crack down on people who buy guns and turn around and sell them to criminals. it's a bill that would keep more guns off the street and out of the hands of people with the intent of doing harm. [applause]
and by the way, in addition to reducing violence on the streets, it would make life a lot easier and safer for the people standing behind me here today. [applause] we shouldn't stop there. we should restore the ban on military style assault weapons and a ten round limit for magazines. [applause] and that deserves a vote in congress because weapons of war have no place on our streets or in our schools or threatening our law enforcement officers which our law enforcement officers should never be outgunned on the streets. [applause] but we also know that if we are going to solve the problem of gun violence, then we've got to look at root causes as well. that means we should make it easier for young people to get access to mental health
treatment. [applause] we should help communities like this one keep more cops on the beat. [applause] and since congress hasn't confirmed a director of the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms they should confirm your u.s. attorney from minnesota todd jones to that post. [applause] these are common sense measures supported by democrats, republicans and independents and many of them are responsible gun owners. we're seeing members of congress from both parties put aside their differences and work together to make many of them a reality. but if there is one thing that i've learned over the last four
years, it's that you can't count on anything in washington until it's done. and nothing is done yet. there's been a lot of talk, a lot of conversation, a lot of pub blissty, but we haven't taken concrete steps yet. last week the senate held its first hearing since newtown on the best way to move forward on gun violence. >> the first people to offer testimony were gab gi giffords and her husband captain kelly. if we had a limit on magazines the gunman who shot her wouldn't have been able to shoot 33 rounds in 15 seconds. some of the six people who lost their lives that day in tucson might still be with us.
changing the status quo is never easy. this will be no exception. the only way we can reduce gun violence is if the american people decide it's important. if parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, hunters and sportsman, americans of every background stand up and say this time it's going to be different which we've suffered too much pain to stand by and do nothing. and by the way, it's really important for us to engage with folks who don't agree with us on everything because we hope that we can find some areas where we do agree and we have to recognize there are going to be regional differences and geographic differences. the experience the people have of guns in an urban neighborhood might not be the same as in a rural community. but we know for example from
polling that universal background checks are universally supported by gun owners, ifth overwhelming majority of gun owners think that's a good idea. so if we've got a lob yist in washington claiming to speak for gun owners saying something different we need to go to the source and reach route to people directly. we can't allow those filters to get in the way of common sense. that's why i need everybody who is listening to keep the pressure on your member of congress to do the right thing. ask them if they support common sense reforms like requiring universal background checks or restoring the ban on military style assault weapons and high capacity magazines. tell them there is no legislation to eliminate all guns. there is no legislation being proposed to subvert the second
>> it changes you. obviously whatever that experience is like is nothing compared to the experience those families are actually going through. makes you realize if there's one thing we can do to keep our children and community safe just one step we can take to prevent more families from feeling what they feel after they've lost a love one. we got an obligation to take that step. we got an obligation to give our police officers and communities the tools they need to make some of the same progress that has been made here in minneapolis. there won't be perfect solutions but we can make a difference. that's our responsibility as americans. that's i'll do every single day
c-span.org. president obama expected to speak with congressional democrats in annapolis, maryland. the house is in recess now. members will be returning for legislative business working on a number of suspension bills. will be both after 6:30. life coverage of the house is here on c-span. some news a man considered one of america's deadliest military snipers was killed on saturday. chris kyle was shot to death. the motive of the shooting is not known. >> chris kyle why did you decide to join the navy? guest: actually i was -- i grew up thinking the marines were the biggest baddest guys on the block and i always wanted to be one. i went to and tried to become a
marine. the marine recruiter was out to launch. in all strip mall, you got these army recruiters coming out trying to be snipers and pickto you off and get you to come to f them. i talked to each one of them and the navy recruiter sold me on being a s.e.a.l. host: at that moment, you knews you wanted to be a s.e.a.l.? guest: everything he was telling me, the recruiter built it up where it was more of jason borne type of thing. navy s.e.a.l.es they deyo all of this stuff you never hear about. all of this great adventures and you're going to be the most highly trained person out there. you're going to be able to have all of these skills shooting.t o i thought, that sounds great. b if they're the best, i want to be the best.r host: what was your training like? guest: , well, the initial boot camp to become a s.e.a.l. is bas
called buds. that felt like seven months long standing there with your feet shoulder length apart getting kicked in the junk.andy it sucked. it was wet and sandy everyday. times i thought about quitting. i don't know if i was too lazy s to get up and find the bell to, ring it. somehow i managed to make itost: through. host: when did you serve? guest: i went in february 1999 and got out november of 2009. host: chris kyle is author of 13 week best seller, "american sniper: the autobiography of the most lethal sniper in u.s.y military history." he is our guest for the next he hour here on book tv on c-span 2. we're going if put the numbers up on the screen if you wouldyo like to talk with mr. kyle. 202 is the area code. those of you in the mountain and
specific time zone, 737-0002. we got to set atime this morning for iraq and afghanistan vets, (202)628-0205. you can also contact us electronically, you cans send a e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. chris kyle in your book, you write that you were not the best shot at all in your class ort before you went into the s.e.a.l.? sn guest: no sir, i never proclaimed to be the greatest sniper. i was in the middle of the pack when we graduated. everyone tends to think when you get these number of kill, all of sudden you're this great sniper. that's not there measure of as sniper.nip the measure of true greatness of
a inspire is to measure everything in one. that's why in my mind, carlos , he is the greatest sniper ever in history. not just in america but all over the world. he is a guy that will go in by himself, sneak in and take his shot with a lot less capable weapons than we have today andu optics. he will take that shot and sneak back out indetected. that's the measure of a sniper is being able to get in and identify your target and take the shot and get out. host: jim erickson sends a a e-mail. how many unestimated kills diddi you have? wi did you ever train with m-25 white feather rifle? guest: i never used that rifle. as far as the unconfirmed kills, you never count those.
there's no point trying to keep track of what could have been or might have been. you just wasting your time. your whole thing you're out there to tray to take these bad guys off the street and make it safer for your guys and allow some more of your guys to be able to make it home. the ideal thing, if i knew the number of lives i saved.nown that's something i love to be'tc known for but you can't calculate that. host: what was your reaction t the time to a kill? guest: i mean, when you'ren yo looking at these people, you'ref not thinking of them more less as people. they're a target because moist ofou the time, they're therecti actively engaging trying to kill your guys. you're trying to see yourself as a guardian angel to protect the guys on the ground who are in danger. you have to dehumanize it and remove yourself from it. otherwise you don't want to think about do they have a family and what's your job and
what have they done? you trying to in your mind think i want this guy to be able to gy home. my guy, i want him to be able to go home. i'm going to take out this target to allow him to do that. host: where did you serve? guest: iraq? host: when? guest: i was over for the invasion in 2003 and went back in 2004. w then was attached to the marine core for the battle of fallujah, and sent back to baghdad. then went back in 2006 and speni all of that time in ramadi and went back in 2008 and was sent out west but then sent out a call for s.e.a.l. snipers to come to baghdad and help secure the green zone.
host: chris kyle, why did youlv leave the s.e.a.l.es in 2009? guest: being a s.e.a.l. ismarr extremely tough on your marriage. we got extremely high divorce rate. ite. was about 95% divorce.e. my wife and i constantly struggled trying to keep the marriage afloat. when you're not deployed when you come home, your training is not at home. you're never truly home. it was causing stress on the marriage and it finally got to the point to where i needed to decide. is it going to be god country and family or god family and country. i chose to hang it up and quit and give everything back to my family now. host: your wife is tya or taya? guest: taya? guest: george learner y e-mails to you.
after returning to the u.s., did tours have aggressive impact on your family? if so, what did the military do? guest: the first time i went over it was definitely difficult. at the time, we weren't getting the coverage over there as far as all the support that's behind the troops.e we felt like america was against us. we thought thisie is going to ba vietnam. when we come home will people spit on us. towards the end of the deployment we were and to see coverage and all the support. definitely helped out.en when i came home, it was d difficult because you leave from a war zone one day and then your home the next day.day. they fly you straight home.s yo it takes a little bit. you have about a month off to
where you reacclimate yourself. i would spend about a week at home and hang out with the g family and try to get to knowafa them again. hopeful my kids weren't afraidb, of me.lly for the first time, i was a little upset coming home. i saw everybody doing their day do day normal lives and i wasl thinking, you all don't know kn there's a war going on.goin there's people dying. as i continue doing this, itit came c to the realization that that is what ' -- that is why we're doing it. we're over there fighting so everybody can live their day-to-day lives. host: chris kyle, what was your first confirmed kill?oca guest: we were trying to softlien some of the locations. we weren't going to make it safe. but try to add something to it.
while in the city, the marines started to approach, the people came out to show they were supportive of the military. they weren't going to fight. was a womans a ere that came out and she had and something in her hands. i was watching her, i was relaying back to my chief everything she had and what she was doing. he informed me this was a chinese grenade.e gr told me had to take the shot. she started approaching the marines. at this point, i never killed anyone. so it was definitely made me pause but also the fact that it's not a man. it was difficult. we tried to radio the marines to let them handle it. i didn't want to be the one to take the woman's life.ra we couldn't raise them on the radio. i ended up having to take the shot. m in my mind, she was dead anyway. she was either going to kill herself or suicide bomber or shd
was going to die by my bullet.er i would rather shoot her than to sit there and watch her blow up the marines. host: chris kyle writes, as the americans organize the woman took something from beneath her clothes and yanked at it. she set a grenade. i didn't realize it at first. t looks yellow, i told the chief describing what i saw as he watches himself. it's yellow, the body. she's got a grenade said the chief. take a shot but shoot, get the grenade. i hesitated, someone was triangle to -- trying to get the marines on the radio. shoot said the chief. i pushed my finger against the trigger, the bullet leapt out and i shot. the grenade dropped and i fired again. it was the first time i killed anyone while i was on the sniper rifle and first time in iraq and only time i killed anyone other than a male combatant.
first call from chris kyle comes fromno arthur in norfolk, virginia. caller: thank you for youryour service and everybody service in iraq and afghanistan. my question is, if you could speak to the others and wives on behalf of their sons and daughters who died over there.ha what would you tell them about the war and about why their sons and daughters died? guest: , well, iwe appreciateai their sacrifice and i'm very close with some of them because some of those sons that did die were my guys. i remain close with those families. as far asas telling them their sons or daughters sacrifice and was it worth it? any war, no matter where it is, not a single american life is t
worth it.he for the over all cause, to be able to make a place safer in the world, these guys and girlsl are outs there putting their lives on the line and they areee true heroes. there's no pause. they're out there because the country sends out there. you don't have to to believe inu the war. you have that sense of honor that you're going to serve this country no matter where congress tells you or the president tells you're going to go. you just go.uty, you do your duty and you're fighting for the guy or girl on. the right or left of you. rea i wasn't really fighting for iraq. i hate tor say it, i wasn't but really fighting for america.sn't i was fighting for my guys. i wanted to make sure every one of those guys came home. host: chris kyle writes the reminder what we were fighting for caused tears as well as and
blood and sweat. i lived the literal meaning of the land of the free and home of the brave. it's not corny to me, i feel it in my heart, i feel it in mychap chest. mr.kyle in a different chapter, you write when i was heading out, it happened i passed a small group protesting against the war. we didn't vote to go to war. i signed up to protect this country. i do not choose the wars. it happens that i love to fight but i do not choose which battle i go to. i have to wonder why these people weren't protesting at their congressional offices or in washington. glyn in freeland, michigan, you are on with chris kyle, "american sniper." caller: my question for mr. kyle in the wake of the trayvon martin case and the shooting at the college in
oakland last week i think it was and virginia tech.ki whatnd do you think this gun cal we have in america where who wants a gun can get one and use it if they ? like. thank you very much. guest: i am 100% behind the second amendment, the right and own and bear arms. i'm here in texas and that is a big part of the culture here. it's my right to be able to have it. but it's also everybody's responsibility to learn thefeti safeties and learn everything about those weapons. there are certain people thatn' don't deserve the weapons. the people who are going to go out and actually act stupid. as far as the trayvon martin thing, i haven't kept up with that.
i haven't heard all the facts. for the most part, i heard one side of the story. i can't comment on that one. all school shootings, yes, especially out in california, i know it's difficult to be able to carry a gun.un, only a few people are legally going to be able d to do that. i don't know why this guy was doing that.pare apparently, gun control though itself, only it's going to do is take the guns out of the law-abiding citizens. the criminals will still have them. host: carl from kerry, kentucky writes to you kyle, what inspires you to write thelt autobiography? guest: actually i was dead set against it. it was something these guys should haved got out and did ts and they were selling out. i did not want to be a sellout. it was taking -- i was
completely against it. then as i found out there were . two other authors who were actively seeking my story. they were going to write the book. if the booko was going to be written, i wanted to make sure it was done the right way. i didn't want someone else writing the book about me and then it being another chest beating story hey look at me look at what i done. when i wrote it, it gives the credit to the proper people.he only reason i even look good isn because of those guys and their heroics. this story gives credits to those, whether it's the s.e.a.l.es, soldiers or marines. they were awesome and i owe them everything. i am calling them out and pe putting them up on a -- this is
just raising the awareness of look what your troops are going through over there. at the same time, you hear my wife, she's telling the hardship of the family back home. when someone goes overseas to fight a war, it's not just them that's in the fight, it the entire family that's left behind. the whole point behind this is knock myself down. i don't even care about thebers numbers. i don't want the hype bullyhype stand up and i -- i will stand s up for the vets. today there'sg a lot of lip service. i'm not saying people don't mean it when they say it. it means a lot to the guys. why can't we take a step further
and show thanks. you don't have to give money. mow their yard and random acts of kindness. host: there was a lot ofsi swearing in this book. guest: it is a lot of cursing. it's a rough type of society. we're not politically correct.s- i don't talk like that on aorl daily basis. there and in that time, it's also kind of a way of stress reliever.y in you're constantly in hectic situations and this is a way of just voicing it and getting it out and then moving on. host: you write about how your wife heard one of your fire
fights?ver guest: yes, sir. it was is something i neverwa intended. i didn't realize the phone wasn't turned off. i thought i was calling at a good time. usually at night.t just to happen this night we were. unfortunately, she was still on: the line. host: what was her reaction? guest: well, definitely upsetting. there were, several times to where i would call home and when she would answer the phone realize it wason my voice on the other line she would cry. there was couple times too where in a helicopter crash, i wouldoe all come back and tell her in case she see it on the news. the media calls s.e.a.l.s special forces. special forces are what everyone calls the green berets. special operations that includes everybody, s.e.a.l.es and rangers. i would come back and say, i wau
in a helicopter crash in casesa you hear about it, we're fine.se no big deal. then another time i wasn't able to call her back and i wasn't ic the helicopter crashal this time and it was actually s.f. guys.ys went down and killed everybody on board and same thing. when i called and she broke down. host: how many helicopter were you in? guest: two. host: how many times were you injured? guest: several. i don't exactly know how manys. times. host: were you ever shot?>> g guest: i was shot twice.i host: where? guest: around the top of the helmet. took one in thet, back and the. side. host: how long did that put yos out of service? guest: fortunately for me, iter was super official wounds but the one in the back especially was hit the body armor which slowed it down just enough toas where it was basically barelymy
punctured my back. wa it was no big deal. just get it cleaned an inyou're backd in the fight.u' host: mark from virginia beach, you're on with chris kyle. caller: i appreciate so muchate your work that you've done as act of duty.yo you talked about not wanting to cash in and stuff. what do you think about people who leave active duty and then continue their work as a contractor? what's next for? you in your lie after the book? thanks a lot for your time and help. guest: as far as theuest contractors, you've got these guys that this is what we're trained to do. some of the guys had degrees as some don't. this is what we know and love.ey when you go in to be a contractor and one of the one
biggest things you miss when you leave are the guys. you hate to give that up.hat you go to be a contractor, a you're surrounded by those guys again.ag you can kind of do some of the same style of work. ge at least you're getting paid, extremely well and you're spending time back overseas wits your guys again. i respect that. the jobth is going to get done o why not be the one to make the o money doing it?i not all of these contractors out there or these wild cowboysooti shooting everybody up. there's only been a few incidents or instances where someone gone off the reservatioe and done something stupid. an as far as me, i am craft international. i am the training side. tra we train the military, trying ta
give back to them, help them prepare they deploy but also law enforcement helping those guys., they are the first responderser, here and i want to give back to my community and make sure thesa guys are prepared. not that i am a one stop shop. o you come here and you know you know everything but at least i have another tool for you to pun in your tool box and hopeful it, will comes in handy and helpd th somebody out. we have the civilian side. out to be marksmanship training to where we have all these machine guns. you can go out and things that you can't own the company does own, and we can bring them out, and you can shoot belt-fed machine guns and have fun. >> host: chris kyle, you have a photo of charlie platoon of seal team three, and several of the faces are blacked out. why is that, and did this book have to go through official vetting? >> guest: yes.
those faces are blacked out. you know, some of the faces blacked out the guys are out, but out of respect for them i wanted to protect their identity, but also the guys that are still active. i mean, we do try to conceal our identities. we're not out there saying, hey, look at me, i'm a navy seal. and as far as going through channels, yes. when the book was written, it was heavily involved with some of my buddies helped me with the different stories because i couldn't remember all of 'em. so they were relaying some of the stories back, and then all of a sudden it jogs your memory. but then i had to turn it into the dod, department of defense did their check over it. it did go to all the seal teams, and everybody you've worked for gets their chop on it to make sure you didn't say anything that was classified or anything that, you know, you're gonna -- more or less you don't want to hurt a bunch of feelings if you don't have to. >> host: was anything taken out of the book, the original
manuscript? >> guest: there were a few things taken out, yes, sir. >> host: lisa, burlington, north carolina. you're on booktv with chris kyle. >> caller: hello? >> host: lisa, please go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: hello? >> host: lisa, we're going to move on. kay in omaha, nebraska. good afternoon. >> caller: hi there. i just wanted to thank you. i never call on the phone and that, and i was just getting ready to hang up, but i just wanted to know that my dad was post commander of the american legion, and on memorial day we all marched out to out of town in that and went up to the cemetery and paid our respects, and the guys shot off the guns and that, and is it was just so awe-inspiring for me as a kid to see this. and my grandmother was post commander of the american legion for the women. and i just wanted to say that
it's coming up now, and i'm going out there and march by myself in that. thank you very much. >> guest: well, thank you, ma'am. and thank your family for everything they have done and are doing. i really appreciate it. that's one thing that we do as a family on memorial day, there's a national cemetery out here, and we take the entire family out there, and we'll find a tombstone and lay a rose on it. and it's to show the kids that we are honoring these guys who have come before us and paid the ultimate sacrifice, and i want them to understand it and be supportive of the military. you don't have to support the wars, i don't care about that, but the men and women wearing that uniform are true heroes. like i said before, they don't decide where they go, but they're willing to do whatever their country asks. >> host: chris kyle is joining us from dallas. and daryl in freemo, this --
fremont, california, you're on booktv talking with chris kyle of "american sniper." >> caller: hey, how you doing. >> host: please go ahead. >> caller: can you hear me? >> host: we're listening. >> caller: all right. i just want to let you know that i do appreciate all that you're doing for our country and other countries because it's very important to have someone like you available, and i know that all you guys risk every bit of your lives just to do this. and i just want to, you know, just cry out for you that when some come up missing, i do have worries in heart because, um, it takes you to help keep it straightened out and to a level that we appreciate every bit of your skills. because that is the most important, key factor to winning the wars, and i just want to the let you know you're my hero, and
you will always be my hero. my dad fought from 1941 to 1944 in the war, and he's my hero today. you know? and i wish they would open up doors better for you guys to receive compensation for what you do because, you know, it's gallant. and my dad today, he's lived to see on may 4th 90 years of surviving that. so i just want to let you know, you are appreciated. >> guest: well, thank you, sir. i really appreciate that, and i really respect your father for everything he's done. and i to longer wear the uniform, so my heroes are all those men and women wearing it. and the men and women that have come before us. they have definitely set the bar high, and those are some high standards to try to live up to.
>> host: chris kyle, are there any female snipers? >> guest: not that i know of. as far as i know, being a sniper is still being on the front line, and the last that i was told any, anyone in combat the closest they could get to being on the front lines as a woman was to be a pilot. >> host: next call for chris kyle comes from from host: next call for chris kyle come from dave, go ahead dave. caller: good morning. i'm a seven-year veteran, deported seven times. i was a marine and navy. i understand everything you're saying. i'm right there with you. thank you for showing me the way because i passed marine core school. i was out there with you brother. i was in fallujah back then,
2002 to 2009.m guest: thank you for all yourut service.ling failing out of s.e.a.l. school, just because i made it through s.e.a.l. school, doesn't make me any better than anybody else. just different strokes for different folks. there's outstanding in all the other branches even just regular -- there are some true fighters and warriors there. i respect the hell out ofthat everyone wearing that uniform. host: e-mail from john movitt from san francisco. have you read "jar head" and if so what did you think of this book? guest: honestly i haven't. i read carlos hascox. other than that, most of the t bookshe i read were fiction.
it was about vince lynn and all his duties out there. i wasn't a big reader.hat. host: what about marcus latrolt book? guest: marcus is a friend of mine. it's a tough one to read. i appreciate his story. in that book, he's not saying,g, look at me. he's trying to highlight the friend that he lost and show the true hero that's they were. host: next call for chris kyle "american sniper" comes fromo're julio. guest: i saw you on the oreilly factor. you mentioned you punched governor jesse ventura.
i saw on the video saying that t incident did not take place at the bar in california.omeo it's obvious someone is lying,or either you or governor ventura. what is going on here? did this incident happen and ift not why would you call out a navy s.e.a.l. someone who was well respected in a big public figure like governor ventura? guest: my intention was never to - call him out. a caller called in and said tell him this story about this. there were other people that know this that were there but as far as anything else, i'm not even going to talk about it at this time. host: you do write about jesse ventura in your book. did he not sue you? guest: he is. host: that is unsettled at this point?
guest: yes, sir. host: california, ralph you're on the line with chris kyle. yo caller: kyle i'm a marine. myen question for you though wa, talk a little bit about honor. civilians don't seem to understand what it means in thee military, especially the s.e.a .l.s and marines. what honor really is. thank you. guest: thank you for your service sir. i apologize for the reaction you got when you came home. as far as the honor, when that flag is flying and the national anthem is playing, i feel chills. sometimes i get little chokedag up. everything that flag stands for, there are guys who have died to be able to allow me to be at m that sport and event or wherever i maybeve and hear that song and see that flag.
you are willing to put everything on the line. you're willing to die for your country whether you believe in the cause or not just becauseaus your country says, we need this. you're going to do something for the greater good. that was one of big things he ao problem with when i end up u getting out of the military. my whole job, it was all for the greater good. you love this country no matter who's in charge if you're democrat or republican or what or how bad things might be hereg this is still the greatest nation in the world.
there's no other place i'd rather be. just that love of this country a and you're willing to do whatever the country ask of you. host: where did you grow up and what were you doing before you joined the navy? guest: born and raised here in texas. i was born in odessa and moved when i was young. my dad worked for the phone company and we moved around a little bit all over texas. when i graduated school, i end up going to college .- it was a smaller college at the time. it was down in stevenville, texas. when i was down there, i was working on ranches and i decided that i was going to -- i had two dreams in life. one was to be a cowboy and the other was to be in the military. i was down there doing some rodeos and working on the ranches and figured why do i i need to be in school? i did, i quit college and just
kept working as a cowboy for a living, traveling around texas onnd different ranches and new mexico and colorado and until eventually i figured out, well,t i've gotten this long enough, i have one other dream. now it's time to go and do it. host: who are scott mcewen and jim defelice? guest: scott mcewen he's a lawyer in san diego. he's a man that i met through another former team guy. being around and hearing so much the stories and talking with me. he's the one that approached me and said you need a write a book and i want to help you do it. he got me in touch with harper collins who ended up wanting to publish this book. then jim defelice is thes actual author. he's the man that i spent the time with extended periods of time, sitting down relaying all of my stories back to him. he would record it, take notes
and then writing it back into a story format would try to grab the reader and get my points across. host: edward inr houston, getwt your points for chris kyle. caller: i wanted to find out if there was any information the company he mentioned earlierier that he can send me through thet mail. my computer is not active. i'm trying to find out as much as information on the company he mentioned about -- host: why is that edward?e guest: it's something i've been curious about for a while. i never really had to do it with raising a family. now that i'm older, i'm thinking about it. i don't know if i'llab be able o follow through. i'm just curious about it. i want to find out if there's anything he can send me orng h information he can give me.
guest: well, i think you're talking about craftompa international. the company i mentioned earlier. their training site, it's basically the military outsources a lot of its training. it's awarded to d.o.d. contractors that they'll sendnd different units to places aroundthe united states. we happen to be based in texas.s we have to fill these elsewhere throughout the united states. we're training these guys not only in sniping but off road driving, tactical driving, hand to hand. anything that deals with weapons. all the different tactics we are teaching the military and thela law enforcement. for the military, we have hired -- it's not just s.e.a.l.s. i am or was a s.e.a.l. but and there's a few more working with
us. have a lot of special forcesma -- marines, army. when i have other units comingn in, i don't want just a s.e.a.l being up there and people think, he's a s.e.a.l., he has an ego or whatever he thinks he'shan better than me.e now i have a team of guys from all of tees different branchesmi andng we're coming together sayt here's something that can help. then, sometimes army and marines you might have a little different lynn goe. now at least you have that guyve there that can speak your speak. we do the same thing with law enforcement. try to come out with the best
possible solution for everyone. host: chris kyle what's the website? guest: it is thecraft.com. host: next call comes from jeff acon, south carolina. caller: i appreciate everything you've done.. i served from 2000 to 2006 in iraq. not the whole time in iraq.what i got out and discovered the same thing you did. nd w a lot of people maybe don't understand what's going on as an individual.
if you can go into that g for people and explain to them that you're not a cold-blooded killer as much as you're doing the job. thanks man. guest: thank you for your service. as far as being a sniper, like i was saying before, i'm not out there trying to rack up kills and get these huge numbers. i don't care about the numbers. i would love to be known by thee number of people i was actually able to save. i'm out there to ensure the safety of everyone on the streets. i want every one of those guyst and girls that go over there with me to be able to come home. it's not just those guys that i'm protecting, i'mi' also there to protect the civilians in that location where i'm at. some of these open air markets we were there to be able to co provide that security so they can come back out and sell theif goods without worrying about someone snatching them off the
street and blowing them up. they were out there ruling in fear by cutting heads off and torturing people. we're justpl trying to make it safe. you can't think of the person yu that you're shooting as an pe actual person. otherwise, it's going to tearou you apart. you can't think of their family or anything.u're you're there to provide safety for your guys and the civilians that are out there. like you said, it's a difficultn job. some people i've seen commentses called me a coward for hiding in a location where no one can seed me and shooting a guy from a mile away. well, there's a reason i'm i shooting a guy from a mile awayu i wasn't closest enough and som there was someone who was closee enough and he was going to kill. wherever i can reach out and get you to be able to provide that security, i will do it, or did.
it's unfortunate but war is hell and we're not going over there to hand out flowers and cookies. we're being called in because it hit the fan and we're there to make it stop.l re host: rachael rubin tweets, on becoming a sniper, is there some kind of aptitude test for that? just have a good eye? how does one again assigned a sniper? guest: we weren't allowed to bs a new guy a brand new guy never deployed to be a sniper. you had to show you're abl responsible and mature enough to be able to conduct yourself and possibly pass through the course. my chief nominated me to be able to go when i got back from my first deployment. when you go as far as the aptitude test, that's something they'veal all been trying to figure out. what kind of person does it
take. honestly, i don't know. i'm not a very patient man. patience i don'tth think is a requirement to being a sniper. it's professional -- it'sdoin professional discipline of doing the right thing at the right time. knowing when you have to pay attention to detail. take your time and slow down and put the vegetation back on yourl suit and you're coming into au'e new environment. and it's not the same vegetation that you have on you so you havo to stop, take the time to take that old stuff off and put the new stuff on. it's kind of like integrity,righ doing the right thing at the right time and being able to concentrate on the weapon and ad shoot and actually be able to learn all the different things that are involved with theal s actual shooting portion.s, a there's a lot of math involved, especially the farther out and a
distance you go. host: you're watching "book tvs on c-span 2. our guest is chris kyle the author of "american sniper: the autobiography of the most lethal sniper in u.s. military history." we have about 15to minutes left with our guests. robert is active duty in salt lake city, robert you're on y "book tv"ou with chris kyle.e. caller: i wanted to say thank you for all year service. i joined in 1985 and i'm still currently in. i was the away on t.d.y. last year and i seen your book and i picked it up. it's a fantastic book. i haven't been able to put it down. i think i have 20 pages left. thank you again for everything. guest: well, thank you sir. thank you for everything you have done and everything you continue to do for us.you you are the reason this book is
out there to draw awareness to your sacrifices and hopefully th the public will then lift you up and say, thank you and show you things. in fact, the book, all of my portion of the proceeds are going back to the two families of the guys i lost. mark lee and ryan joe. the other third of that money is going back to charities to help. vets. i am out here promoting this book and unfortunately, this is not a happy go lucky book.y-go that was some of the best moments of my life but it was of the worst.time every time i do this book tour and talk about this, you relivee it. you get stressed and especially the first time i talking with the author, you feel like you just got run over by a doi mac-truck. i'm doing this for these guys because i am highlighting them. i'm not going to sit here andnd give you lip service.
i'm going to show you too, i'mbk giving this money back to these guys. host: what was the bookhak tor like for you? guest: it was fun but at the same time, it was stressful.ecau you're worried because there's i always going to be haters out there. you're wondering when is that hater going to's come up andd confront you. are they going to throw something at you or spit on you. fortunately, i have yet to see that. it's emotional at times. i've had some of the family members stand in line and wait to be able to get up there and sign a book with me. i love seeing these people. they come up and they're nervous because they want me to sign their book. i keep telling them, i swear,m, you're not as nervous as i am. i not super comfortable in front of big groups of people and one on one. it's difficult for me but i do enjoy it and i do love seeing these guys in uniform standing
there and lying. the first one i did was here in dallas and it was a rainy night. it was the night of the national championship between alabama and lsu. i was mad because i wanted to watch the game and my publicist scheduled it. i said hardly anyone will showi' up and i will catch it. well, 12000 people later and the game was over. wa it was an awesome turnout. all of these people are coming, out and saying, thank you. you opened my eyes.u, y i had a woman write me a letter saying, i was not only against the war i was against the military. she was raised in a military family and she hated them. aftersh reading my book, she sad i understand. h she said it made her cry and to where now, she supports thei troops. i find it amazing that this booe is reaching out and actually
touching people and opening som eyes. i'm doing these book signings, all of these people are standing in line to meet me.wh which it blows my mind. if they're going to stand there in line to meet me, i'm going td stand there. i'm not going to sit behind the detective -- desk and sign ae book. as long as'm you're standing i'm going to stand. host: language alert, here's a little bit from chris kyle's "is american sniper." this is the subchapter. one kid hadn't quite made it. he was lying on his back some yards away crying in pain. i started laying down fire and
ran up to crab him. when i got to him i saw he was in pretty bad shape. i dropped and started hauling him backwards. somehow i managed to slip. the kid was about 18 years old. he was really badly hurt. i could tell he was going to die. please don't tell my mom i died in pain. kid, i don't no you are, i'm not telling your mom or anything. don't worry, everybody will make it sound real great. he died right there. he didn't hear long enough to hear my lies about everything will be okay. bunch of marines came, they lifts me off of him and put him in the back of the hummer. we took out a shooting position where the fire come from. i went back to my block and continued the fight. next call is sean in florida,u'e
you're on. caller: i want to say thanks for your service.ar i was a army scout in iraq and kuwait. being down here in florida, i did have honor to attend the last muster. that was a very touching, very moving. itng was great to be able to sea lot of the s.e.a.l. guys that ev get out and do it everyday. your comment on seeing the flag, the star spangled banner. every hair on my body stood up. my wife left out in tear. they don't get it much. i got 17 and 18-year-old kid,
what's your advice for the nextc generation ofe kid that want tt join the military and train ande combatant. maybe not special op combatant but just serve inll the military and serve their country? guest: thank you for your service. as far as the kids, i got two kids myself. i'm never going to push themus towards the military or pushuse away. one great thing, the military, it is a volunteer force.t if you're going to be there, inr want it to be because you want it.nto will you go into honor that goes in serving your country. as far as preparing them, they need to know that when you sign up to go into the military, there's a very high likelilyo hood, you will go to war. just prepare yourself that you may be called upon by your country to put your life on the
line and possibly give your life for everybody else safety here. lot of people are saying, they don't understand why theythey fighting over there and'r that's fine. you don't even listen to the people who are coming out against the war because what they need to be doing isst t protesting congress or protesting the president. all of these politicians, leave the military guys alone.'re they're out there doing a job. it's extremely honorable job. you're going to have some of the best moments of your life. .... the worst moments of your life. it's going to be your extreme ups and your extreme lows. so just be prepared. >> host: matt, yakima, washington. go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: hi, chris. thank you so much for taking so much time and talking with us and speaking today. thanks for your service, thanks
for your sacrifice, time away from your family and everything you've done. for the story, i can't wait to read your book. and for your advice that you're giving just with what we can do for really our neighbors, our family members that are coming back not just a is simple, hey, thanks for the service, but, you know, what can we do for you. can you go more into that? and did you see "act of valor"? did you like that? >> guest: i did see "act of valor." i do like it. i watched it one time, it was a -- i don't know what they called it, but they gave us a special showing of it, and it was all us military guys in there. and it was definitely emotional. a lot of those different things. i was involved with because each of those missions were true missions. but it definitely hurt to watch
it, and the next time i watch it, it will be in my own home with no one else around. as far as giving back to the guys and showing your thanks, it's simple little things, you know? if they own their house or, you know, if they have a house that has a yard or something, go mow their yard for 'em. cook 'em something whether it's a meal or cookies, you know, come over and ask if, hey, do you need this chore done or that chore, whatever. it's just simple little things, and it will take some of your time, you know, depending on what you want to do, it could take five minutes or all day long. it depends on how much you want to do. but these guys are out this willing to die for you. i feel like now it's our duty to give back to them and to make sure that they know that we appreciate everything that they're doing. because i don't think most of the public fully understands and grasps what these men and women are willing to do for our safety
and security. they're willing to the die for us. people that they don't even know and people they'll never meet, but they're willing to die for us. so the least we can do is take some time out of our days. and everybody's day, i know, is extremely busy. but it's not going to do anything but make you feel better inside because now we've been doing these retreats for these guys, taking 'em out hunting, fishing, doing doesn't things with them just to get them out and say, look, i love you, thank you, this is what i'm going to do for you. so let's go do this. and there's other organizations out there. you know, one of them i've been involved with is called fitco. fitco cares hero project. when i got out, i started drinking a lot, and then i got way out of shape, i refused to work out, and i was depressed. so i started working out again finally, started getting back into shape, and when i did that, my head cleared up. so when i did that, i went to this guy, and i said, hey, this
helped me. do you have some old equipment or something cheap that i can buy to help put in these vets ooh homes? because these vets, if they were like me, when you're out of shape, you don't want to go to a gym and then people look at you and go, oh, you used to be that? whatever. and then you feel bad about yourself or these guys that are coming back injured, they don't want to go to a gym and people stare at 'em. so this guy turned this thing into a huge organization, a nonprofit now to where we're taking brand new, expensive equipment and putting it in these guys' and girls' homes so they can feel better within. but then it's also, has private trainers if you want it. it has therapists if you need it. we're not only just trying to get the body back, we're trying to help you in everything. because ptsd is nothing to be frowned on. these guys, they're still a part of the society. they gave to us. they can still be trusted. i mean, it's nothing to be looked down on. we need to help them. we owe it to 'em.
>> host: chris kyle writes: >> host: debbie in denver, you're on with "american sniper" chris kyle. >> caller: hi, chris. first of all, thank you for serving, and i just want to say that i come from a long line of military family as well, and i remember my dad and my brother both served in vietnam at the same time. and my mother was a tough cookie, boy, she just was real tough and thick skinned. and i remember as a child that
we weren't allowed to ask or question either of them about the combat or the kills or anything like that. so now my son is a combat veteran, and he served -- he was in iraq in the second year of the war. but when he came home, he was torn and suffered a lot, and he was injured, and i remembered that old, you know, that old thing that you don't question, you don't talk about it. so what's your thought on that? because i really wanted to reach out to my son, but i just was instilled with that boundary of you just don't cross. >> host: chris kyle. >> guest: well, as far as the not talking to him about it, you know, i think a lot of these guys that are having problems, you know, i think ptsd is something that no matter how much you talk about it, i don't think ptsd is going to go away. it's something that you're going to have to learn to live with
and work around, but it is definitely something controllable and something that could be put to the back of your mind. .. och no matter what you have seen or what you have done, i am here for you because you served for me and now i am going to serve you. as far as the rest of your family thank you so much for everything your family has done
and i am really sorry that your son has gone through and made such sacrifices but i definitely wish him the best. >> here's the book. select the 12, the autobiography of the most lethal flight carrying u.s. military history. we have been talking with the >> author chris kyl was killed reportedly by a former marine on sunday at a shooting range with post-traumatic stress syndrome. a helping fellow veterans leaving active duty. he left the navy in 2009 and with 38. the house comes in this afternoon at 5:00 eastern and will debate three bills with votes at 6:30. the deal with training medical students at hospitals, training and emergency medical technician
and pediatric medical research. president obama missed today's legal deadline for sending his proposed budget to congress. the house speaker spoke about it on the floor. mr. speaker, president obama missed a great opportunity today to help our economy. this was supposed to be the day that the president submitted his budget to the congress. but it's not coming. it's going to be late. some reports say that it could be as long as a month late. i think that's too bad. our economy could use some presidential leadership right now. on thursday, the president disbanded his jobs council after a grand total of four meetings in two years. then as americans got to work on friday, they learn their economy still isn't creating enough jobs. the unemployment rate actually went up. now if government spending does cause growth as the president believes, we shouldn't be having these problems.
then maybe it wouldn't be so disappointing that his budget is late. well, we are having trouble in large part because spending is the problem. it's what's chasing jobs overseas and causing much anxiety about our future. one example of something the president's budget could have addressed is his sequester. a sequester is washington speak for automatic spending cuts. the president first proposed the sequester in 2011, and insisted that it be part of the debt limit agreement. now twice the house has passed legislation to replace the president's sequester with commonsense reforms that would reduce spending and preserve and strengthen our safety net for future generations. we spread it all out. we have done our work. because we are committed to getting spending under control. and we have long said there is a better way to cut spending.
unfortunately our democrat colleagues in the senate haven't taken action. they haven't acted on our plan to replace the president's sequester or haven't authored one of their own. what we should do is replace the president's sequester with responsible reforms that will help balance the budget in 10 years. our goal is to grow the economy, expand opportunity and prosperity, and ensure american maintains -- america maintains its leading role in the world with a strong national defense. to do that we need to budget responsibly. we need a budget that reflects those priorities. but to replace the president's sequester, we need our democrat colleagues to get serious about spending. i wish i could give the american people more cause for optimism, but we see the president's budget is late, and the senate hasn't passed a budget in nearly four years. this week the house will act on a measure introduced by the
gentleman from georgia, mr. price, that requires the president to submit a balanced budget. because we know and i think the american people agree, spending is the problem and the sooner we solve our spending problem, the >> if the budget fails to alleviate the deficit, he will submit plans for how balanced budget ultimately is reached. today, the house returns for debate at 5:00 eastern on c- span. center rakowski called for expanded oil and gas drilling. she is a top republican on the senate energy committee. she wants to use some of the money for clean energy. how
>> i am the only one up here and i don't have any charts, but i have a buck. the book you have all been waiting for, we have been talking about it for a year now. thank you for the opportunity to talk a little bit about what we have been doing on the energy committee on the republican side for the past year. it is an effort to focus on energy policy and move forward in no way that is not the same old same old, but really real imagining and refocusing where we could be. it has been an important opportunity for us to really put some considered thought into this proposal. what you have in front of you is better than airplane reading. there are concrete proposals and
them. there are results in this energy 2020 document that people will look out and argue and say, that is one person's view. that is true. but what we are trying to do is not give you a legislative package starting with initiatives as we move forward. this was designed to be a discussion blueprint and we want to try to change the conversation. one of the things about changing the conversation is because the energy paradigm has really shifted. it was all about scarcity and shortages and how dependent we were on foreign sources for oil. it was looking at the need for lng. fast forward to where we are
today and the import terminals are now looking to the export terminals. we have made considerable gains in terms of our on energy independence to the point where it is no longer just a slogan we are talking about. we need to think about what it means to go from an energy discussion that is focused on scarcity to one that is focused on relative abundance. and what that means for us as a nation. i started off comments this morning and i distilled a pretty simply, starting off with the proposition that energy is good. i think any of you that watched the super bowl last night know that energy is not only good, it is necessary. and whether it is keeping the lights on so we can enjoy the
game or if it is keeping the lights on so that we can work, this is essential to who we are as a prosperous nation. when you look at this cover, there is a reason for the cover here. when you look at where the lights are around the world, these are prosperous nations where the lights are on. where the lights are off and mongolia and parts of china, and unfortunately, my state of alaska. this is not such a prosperous area. how we utilize this is basic premise, starting from energy is good and moving from their is part of how we want to launch this discussion. and contained within this, again, five pretty simple propositions.
we need to move to an energy policy that is abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, secure. when you look at energy in that context, it really does help give you some parameters and guidelines as to how to move forward. as you go through this proposal -- again, think about it in the context which i am offering yet. not legislation. the first question is going to be when we will see the first bill. you will see legislation move forward based on the conversations, based on debate and dialogue on issues. whether it is how we advance revenue sharing or how we put in place and export policy that is not only go ahead -- good for
jobs, working with the balance of trade that is so incredibly important. what you're trying to establish here is a good direction. i am going to anticipate one of your questions which will be, how does climate change fit into your discussion in energy 2020? it has to be part and parcel of what we are talking about. a change in our energy dynamic, there is also a very keen awareness about energy production, energy consumption, that demands attention to the environmental aspect as well. we don't shy away from it. but you will not see a cap and
trade proposal. you will not see suggestions that we need to impose a carbon tax. a carbon tax is designed to increase the cost. in my state of alaska, and that community on the river, on the yukon river, they are paying $6.99 for diesel right now. that is how they are heating their homes. when you suggest to them that the best thing for you to do is to increase the price that you will decrease your consumption. i don't know what the temperature is this morning but last week the temperatures range between 45 below and 50 below depending on who's thermometer you were working -- looking at. i can't go back to alaska and tell people the way we tackle this is to increase your prices,
demanding you to use less and limit your choices. that is not what a strong nation does. a strong nation figures out how we advanced to that next stage, how we build out these technologies, clean technologies and diverse technologies that allow us to do more and do it in no way that is an environmentally responsible way. imposing the mandates of other heavy hand of ideas that are out there for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. they are not going to pass congress. what we need to be dealing, as we move forward, there will be rolled-making efforts. -- rule-making efforts. need to find those ways that we
develop the technologies to really allow us to have that greater environmental responsibility. we need to develop resources that we have today, do it domestically so we cut our dependence on opec. take a portion of that revenue and we specifically dedicate it to the energy solutions of tomorrow. we talk about the energy it willnt finund and how build out and advance. that is the framework. it is good reading and it is designed to advance the discussion. on a critically important topic. last night, as i was watching the game at the same time as i was doing my homework and
figuring out how we were going to do this rollout today, i had no idea when the game first started out 34 minutes was going to help me tell the energy story and why we focus on energy as a prosperous nation. i know it delayed the game a little bit but it was sure help pull from the perspective -- helpful from the perspective of letting americans know how important energy is. any questions on what is contained, not contain? i would be happy to take comments and questions. >> you have a new definition of clean energy. are you looking to replace that, that you are willing to support a national clean energy standard?
>> we are not looking to replace the definition, i think that has been part of the problem. we haven't really defined "clean." it is subject to your own interpretation. we talk about clean coal. i believe our technology can deliver clean coal. those that are opposed to coal say there is no such thing. at is how we replacewhat we have said definee a definition. in this document, let's not allow this to be a static definition, but along a spectrum. is this technology or energy going to have less environmental impact than the next energy source? how we allow for a definition
that we can somehow agree to, i think, is important. it hasn't really been in place. the standards you are referring to is not an attempt to define clean, necessarily, in the sense of these generic descriptors that we are looking for an energy policy. kleine, abundant, the verse, secure. -- clean, abundant, diverse secure. >> [inaudible] how do you envision that meshing with what the administration has done? >> i think there are some things that we share in common.
i was a supporter of increasing the cap a standards. it is important to recognize that we have some initiative in place that we can either build on it, enhance, reform, make better, a perfect example is loan guarantees. i believe there is a loan guarantee program but we must address it. we saw real problems, we need to look critically at the credit subsidy. i think we need a chief risk officer and consider how we have some kind of early warning allow incorporated, and for more viable projects. these are things that need to be incorporated in a loan guarantee program.
there are other areas where we can step forward and provide some financing opportunities. some public-private partnership. i have been working with senator koonz on the limited partnership for renewable energy resources. they have been limited to oil and gas, why can't we expand them? applicability of reverse auction. one of the problems i think we face when trying to develop out of these technologies is the cost. the cost gets us at every turn. if we can find those areas where there is a federal rule, not just massive subsidies and mandates coming down, but ways to facilitate financing.
this makes sense to me. this is where we should be going. the other area of -- i believe we need a renewable energy deployment fund. something that comes and is established through the revenues that we gain to increased domestic production. and we send off a portion of that to go when specifically -- go in, specifically, to this technology fund. so that we can move to it instead of saying, where are we going to find the money? go out and talk to the appropriators. we do have some opportunities, not only with what is currently in place, but let's adjust and enhance, let's to considerations that have not been in place.
>> on tax subsidies, is that money used to fund clean energy programs as the administration has proposed? >> one of the things the administration has proposed as the elimination of any of the oil and gas tax subsidies that are out there. they have done in in a very direct way that is tax reform for the oil and gas industry but nobody else. i don't think that is right or fair. i don't think most would suggest that the only area where we are going to do tax reform is on the backs of the oil and gas industry, i don't think it makes sense and i will not support it. as we consider tax reform that i believe as a congress, we must do, i think the tax credits
out there and the subsidies available out to be on the table with everything else out there. i think it is important to recognize when the discussion is going on. this is where we will find the source of revenue this week, in a wider approach. >> will it only go to countries that we have trade agreements with? [inaudible] >> what i have proposed in the report is there will be a considered review of this. i encourage a review of the
export policy, if you are a non- fta country, there has to be a best interest finding. it is there to do a full-on review of what is established. i believe it is in the nation's best interest to encourage greater exports, most specifically, of the lng. i am cognizant that we are trying to keep prices down. that is one of my key components, affordability. as we move toward greater
exports, we are not impacting the affordability peace. i think it is fair that there be a considered review of this. i would expect nothing short of a considered review. but i will suggest this much. as we are looking to those friends and allies that do not have free trade agreements with us, specifically japan, as they have experienced a national energy crisis following the tsunami an earthquake in march of 2011, we should look radically of how we can help our friends through export licenses. >> i was wondering, within your division you laid out, is there room for compromise if drilling
isn't expanded off the coast? would you be willing to support taking revenues from -- [inaudible] >> is there room for compromise? i stand before you as the compromise. absolutely. what i want to leave folks with, the real honest approach that i am taking to this, i am putting out a lot of ideas on the table. some of them might take off like rockets and others might be total duds. but that is not my criteria here. my criteria, what i am trying to do, figure out how we get moving on energy policy for this country. at a time where the energy
policy is model the -- muddled up. if i can have a conversation with lawmakers about how we might advance offshore into anities, let's get conversation about revenue sharing -- look at the direction senator widener and i are taking. when we started this discussion, we wanted to find revenue sharing for those coastal states that chose the oil and gas. we have gone beyond that. it will not only include offshore oil and gas, but other energy resources that may come from offshore whether it is wind, ocean energy, let's share that with these states. now we are talking that there is more we can do on revenue
sharing on federal land that has not been considered before. we have opened the conversation very wide. i think it is important for us to a knowledge that we are not locking into one position. we will not draw a line in the sand saying that unless you take my first test ideas i won't talk to you about energy. how we start the conversation and build compromise and consensus for an energy policy that works for republicans and democrats from rural areas cut urban areas, how it works for us all. >> what kind of conversations have you had with the chairman about this plan? and what kind of conversations are you having with republicans on the committee?
senatore queued widener in, he was excited to know that we were putting this level of staff time and personal time into a study of where we can go. he has been given a little bit of the meat of it, he was given his copy. he is going through the sum and total of it as well. my staff is sitting down with his staff to give some of the background in terms of where we have been. i have met with the republicans on the energy committee and told them where we are with this. we have published this report before i went to them.
i wanted to make sure i was not completely missing the boat on an issue, something important to someone and we overlooked it. i will be honest with you that we did pick up something from the senators interested with what is going on with helium. that is not contained in here. literally everything else that we did has been incorporated in one way, shape, or form. there was an effort to do reach out. i made certain that every member has a copy as of this morning. the this is not just something i want republicans to read, i want my friends on the other side of the aisle to study its as well and engage with me. let's talk about what we have in front of us at 5 the areas where we can focus. -- and find the areas where we
can focus. >> have you determined if you will support centsenator hangle. gle? ." >> let's do energy. >> you said there are hundreds of recommendations. is there anything you would talk about, and new areas you have not tried out before? >> i don't think i have called for the full elimination of the advanced technology vehicles manufacturing program and the d. in the document, we say this is a program that has seen the issuance of five loans throughout the time of the
program. it is just not working and it needs to be technology neutral. i am trying to think if there are others that would be, i guess, brand-spanking new. so much of what is contained in this, i think i have said over the course of the four years i have been ranking member on the energy committee now, some of it is just plain common sense. but it is good to put it down as it reflects my position. >> can you elaborate more on why there are concerns? what, philosophically, is wrong with it? have you had conversations with
the environment committee? >> in terms of the program itself, i think it was pretty clear when it was established that it was not intended to be something that was in place forever. if something has demonstrated limited use and it is really not an initiative that is technology neutral, why not shelve it? it is not that i have any kind of philosophical objection to new technology for vehicles. but should we decide that it is going to be electric vehicles that are really going to be the chosen vehicle by the congrss here? -- congress here?
why not allow it to be more of a jump ball here? electric? natural gas? some other alternative? once again, when we make that directive, by definition, it puts other technologies, if not on the outs, perhaps not on a competitive edge. i think it makes sense. i have had conversations with the epw committee, i have not as of yet. >> have you asked others on the committee to join you? why or why not? how do you hope to get the attention of the leaders of the floor with immigration picking up? >> first of all, i did not ask
members to join me because i am not announcing legislation here. the i'm not going to call at the center and ask if they will be a co-sponsor. -- call up a senator and ask if they will be a co-sponsor because there is nothing to co- sponsor. i did not want to have specific legislation here. we had the critical minerals bill here which i hugely support. but i thought, if this is really a conversation starter, let's allow it to be just that. there is nothing predetermined, nothing preordained, no prescriptive legislation. i wanted to make sure my colleagues knew what i was doing and i have certainly done that. bill here which i hugelybut thee
develop this legislation that i will be asking for support and i hope they will take a look at this and there will be initiatives that they look at and say, lisa is coming from this perspective, i have this idea, maybe we can build a bill together. how does this happen? that is the big question. a lot goes on here never sees the light of day on the floor. i would like to think that we are beyond that time when it comes to energy legislation. there is a pent-up demand out there. a part of it is because we did do a lot of good things through the energy committee in the past congress with senator bingaman. how do we make that happen? in a couple of different ways. will come a timesenator widene
started off by looking at issues logistically. there are some things he will never come to my side dodd and there are things i will never go to his side on. there are things in the middle where we can come together and with our committee, have good old fashioned debate with amendments that might pass or fail. get the momentum going. let our colleagues on the house side know what we are doing. we will continue that reach out. and we have to work with the majority leader to press the case. you are not going to see, i believe, a comprehensive energy bill like you saw in 2005. what i do believe you will see
are smaller initiatives that will advance. and when they are advanced, cumulatively, they will make a difference. not only for energy policy but for the economic security, environmental responsibility. i think you will see some positive changes. it is going to take some muscle, quite honestly. with the chairman and myself as a ranking member to ensure that these issues stay in the forefront. to bet want this report one where we have a press conference, they look at the cover, go to the one section that interests them, they closed it and pack it off to a junior staffer at say, let me know what you think about this. in order for us to do something,
we have to stick with it. i think we have the ability to do that. >> [inaudible] it seems like on the big picture tax reform, democrats want revenue and republicans say no way. how do get around that getting the conversation started? >> it is a big one. i certainly recognize that we don't have a lot of choices right now. this is a conversation about energy. but we have some deadlines in front of us. this is if we don't get on top of, quickly, we will see an impact for the economy that we
will not like. this is about the slowing of our gdp. it is going to be a situation where it is no longer acceptable to kick the can. when we talk about the need for tax reform and how we get a process for philosophical divide, i am one that says we have to put it all on the table. we have got to be willing to make some very difficult choices because our options, if we fail to act, are not something that i think most of this country is going to be satisfied with. >> you want to take a look at some of the energy provisions. i know they are talking about
energy proficiency legislation. [inaudible] >> let me start by saying -- it is one of the legs of the energy stool that is critical to us. i think it is often overlooked. that people are looking for the new fancy technologies, the sexy things making news. someone joked if we could figure out how to have a groundbreaking or ribbon cutting that involves some kind of energy efficiency, you would give lawmakers much more interested in moving forward with that as an
initiative. energy efficiency is an opportunity we can't pass up. where senator shahin and p ortman went last year was a good start but they did not get the bill passed. they indicated they will pursue that and i have encouraged them that i want to work with them on that. and i want to work with our colleagues on the house side as well. energy efficiency should not be something that we say, well, we will cede that one. what more conservative principle is there out there that efficiency? how we do it and do its mark is going to be the key. -- it smart is going to be the
key. >> climate issues, your plan envision a carbon economy going forward? [inaudible] >> i believe it would be an outgrowth of what we are proposing but i don't think it is happenstance or by accident i think what you see as you utilize these technologies -- or by accident. i think what you see as you utilize these technologies to allow for diversification that brings you to these breakthroughs in how we produce and consume energy, you get to a lower carbon environment. and i think that is a good thing. but we should be moving that way. we are moving that way.
look at the progress that has been made in the past decade. some of it has been command and control. cap a clearly was. look at what has happened. you have seen a shift to renewable. you have seen a shift toward natural gas. in my state, you have seen a shift in the technologies that are allowing us to go after fuel in a manner that is less intensity than the other alternatives. that is the way that we should be going. to take an approach that has been tried and failed, that was cap and trade, or a carbon tax
designed by its very nature to increase prices at a time where our economy does not need to see increased energy prices, that is not going to get us to a lower carbon economy. i think that my vision takes us there and i don't think it is by accident. i think it is our desire to be in a world that has more affordable, abundant, clean, and secure energy. >> on the question of the epa, [inaudible] >> i think that we need to be vigilant, if you will, about how
the administration moves forward on rule-making that would lead a -- i guess, lead to a policy by default when it comes to reducing emissions through the rule-making process. we will keep an eye on it. we recognize the tools and the tool box are relatively limited. i tried a resolution of disapproval. there have been a couple different efforts since several years ago. they all met with a similar fate. my sense is that the administration is going to look at the lay of the land, that we
are still an economy that is recovering. realize the attempts at command- and-control when it comes to climb at -- climate. i think they will attempt a more back door approach to get the desired results. >> [inaudible] >> i don't use the word "eliminate." i think it is something that we need to look critically at. the word that i use is reform in it. -- reform it.
this wall right now, where you have a requirement and an inability to meet the requirement. you don't have the -- not the nexus, but the alignment between the policy and the ability to perform. i don't need to tell any of you about the stress and anxiety that we have over food for fuel. when we talk about corn-based ethanol used for fuel, it puts pressure on the price of corn and what that really means. how we put in place policies that might look good and sound good, we need to make sure that we are not going down that road
of unintended consequences. and if we are, let's have the ability to pull back and say maybe this one did not work the way that we had hoped. instead, everybody gets so invested. i set up by operations and i need have this even though it is not necessarily wise policy. let's not be afraid to it meant that we might need to reform, revamp, making it more technology neutral. that is not saying we have failed, but it might be acknowledging that we did not appreciate all of the consequences that might be attached to this. let's look atys, this radically.
i think i am in good company asking for that review. okay, thanks. i am not certain. >> still? what more do you need to know? energy right now, i am focused solely on energy but i am not certain. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house is coming in a few minutes, debating children's hospitals, training veterans as emergency technicians and other research. both are scheduled for 6:30. >> the staff writer for roll call is with us. lawmakers are back this week from a district work. a meeting with constituents. what is on the legislative
agenda this week? >> of the bill there are going to do voting on is to require a plan act sponsored by budget committee vice-chairman tom price and sources have told me the idea came out of meetings with the majority leader and people of congressional leadership. it requires that when the president submits his budget to congress that was supposed to be due today, when he does that, identify with which to balance the budget. if he does not identify a year, he will have to submit a second budget. it probably would not happen with a bill like this, but it will send a message from the house. >> house republicans are insisting this budget bill is necessary. why is that? dodge the president was late in three out of the four deadlines with budgets.
they say that they want to make sure that there is some sort of fiscal responsibility coming out of the white house. they have identified 10 years to balance its. they want to at least put the president on the record as saying i will balance the budget this way and by this time. >> what are the house democrats saying? will they vote in favor of final passage? >> no, i would be surprised if any of them voted in favor. but some of the blue dog democrats might consider voting for this just because it would play pretty well in their districts. i would venture to say the vast majority of democrats think this is a gimmick at something that is more a message in bill and
has too much support from them. >> what about party meetings scheduled for later this week? >> it is the same kind of thing republicans did a couple weeks ago at williamsburg. the meat and figure out where are we? what is our role? how're we going to work with the president and against house republicans, working with the said act? -- senate? >> at the same time, republicans are meeting in baltimore to us meet with the heritage foundation. we will have all kinds of sessions in that retreat talking about how conservatives as a unit within the republican party -- [indiscernible] >> what kind of issues can we expect them to